Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

THURROCK DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered tomorow.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Oscar Murton): I beg to move, That the amendment to Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in the schedule be made:

SCHEDULE

Standing Orders, page 100, leave out 'Fees to be taken by the Shorthand Writer' and insert:—


'VII. FEES TO BE TAKEN BY THE SHORTHAND WRITER


For each day he shall attend—


Home
£11·45


Distance of more than 60 miles from Charing Cross
£13·55


For the transcript of his notes, per folio of 72 words—


where carbon copies of transcript are supplied
21·5p


where no carbon copies of transcript are supplied
27·25


carbon copy, per folio of 72 words
1·2p


where evidence is sound recorded
36·5p'.

The amendment provides for increases in the fees charged by the Shorthand Writer. The increases have the approval of the Pay Board and the Civil Service Department. The last increase took effect from 1st November 1971.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Retirement Pensions (Married Woman's Entitlement)

Mr. Boscawen: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will take steps to ensure that where a married woman's entitlement to a retirement pension rests on her husband's contribution record, but where they are legally separated or awaiting a decree absolute, the woman should have the right to be informed whether or not her husband's contributions affecting her pension have reached the required yearly average of not less than 50 per annum.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Robert C. Brown): Where this information is requested it can normally be given.

Mr. Boscawen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is an anomaly which causes a great deal of concern to a number of women long after they have left their husbands, and that it needs to be made clear to them that they can ask for this information, which will enable them to make their contributions? Whatever happens to the married women's option, this residual anomaly will go on for a very long time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider what I have said.

Mr. Brown: I thought that I had made the position clear in my original answer. The question of confidentiality arises. We are as helpful as we can be with women in this position, bearing in mind considerations of confidentiality.

Pensionable Age

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be the estimated cost of enabling men to retire on full pension at 64, 63, 62, 61 and 60 years; and if she will examine the desirability of gradually reducing the pensionable age of men to bring it into line with that of women.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley): Depending on the extent to


which men retired at the lower pensionable age, the annual cost would range from £220 million for a reduction in their pensionable age to 64 to £1,220 million for a reduction to the age of 60. I shall publish fuller details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As to the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave him on 7th May.—[Vol. 873, c. 194–5].

Mr. Roberts: Does my hon. Friend accept that I am the first to acknowledge the financial problems involved in a proposition of this sort, but that I have now received about 2,000 letters on this issue? Will he at least, at this stage, make a gesture which will be welcomed by thousands of working people and trade unionists by accepting the principle of a movement downwards of some kind, or by introducing some concept of flexibility?

Mr. O'Malley: I recognise the desire of men to retire earlier than they do at present. However, as I said to my hon. Friend on 7th May, it is no use condemning men to retire at 60 if that means an enormous cut in their household incomes, as would be the case at present. Secondly, at a time when the pensioner population is increasing rapidly, this would be an additional substantial burden on the work force of the country. Finally, we have to consider this matter alongside other competing priorities.

Mr. Fell: Quite apart from all the matters referred to by the hon. Gentleman, surely there is the further one that until civilisation reaches the point where people know what to do with their leisure—which they certainly do not at the moment—it is dreadful to suggest the earlier retirement of men in good health, because it simply means condemning them to an earlier death.

Mr. O'Malley: It is clear that there are many men, especially among those working in heavy manual trades and industry, who would like the opportunity to retire earlier than the age of 65. However, all these matters must take their place alongside other competing priorities. Already we have 8 million retirement pensioners, large numbers of whom have to rely on supplementary benefit, so low is the level of pensions.

Dr. Winstanley: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a substantial body of informed opinion, including some in his Department, to the effect that retirement should not be sudden, short and sharp, but a gradual process? Does he further recognise that some of his policies, like the earnings rule, discourage people from retiring gradually in that way?

Mr. O'Malley: I am aware of the views and the professional advice to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Indeed, the general proposition that there should be phased retirement is attractive. It is clearly a matter that any Government must consider in assessing pensions priorities and the allocation of available financial resources.

Following is the information:


Estimated* cost of reducing minimum pensionable age for men


To age



£ million a year


64
…
…
…
220


63
…
…
…
450


62
…
…
…
690


61
…
…
…
950


60
…
…
…
1,220


* (1) Assuming that the present pattern of retirement for men up to five years older than 65 were to be repeated for men up to five years older than the new minimum pensionable age; and


(2) using the new pension rates of £10 for a single person and £16 for a married couple.

Hospital Consultants

Mr. Grylls: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when she last met the representatives of hospital consultants.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mrs. Barbara Castle): I met representatives of all sections of the medical and dental professions on 23rd May.

Mr. Grylls: What does the Secretary of State propose to do? I understand that there are 1,100 unfilled posts in hospitals throughout the country. Does she accept that consultants generally are the pace setters of the medical world? At present, British consultants are the lowest paid in the whole of Europe. The problem has been made more difficult by more and more young doctors going into general practice rather than into consultancy work. What firm proposals has the Secretary of State to try to improve the situation before the health service breaks down?

Mrs. Castle: I am aware of discontent among consultants. Indeed, one of the first deputations that I received on taking office was from the BMA, asking me to set up a joint working party between it and the Department in order that full consideration could be given to the situation and to the consultant's contract. I readily agreed. The working party is now in operation, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health. There has already been one meeting and I understand there is to be another tomorrow. The working party is going into all the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Sillars: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that a Labour Government will never do what a previous Conservative administration did—agree with the BMA to cut the numbers of people going into medical school and thereby help to create a doctor shortage at a later date?

Mrs. Castle: I certainly agree that that would not be the way to meet the shortages and problems of the National Health Service.

Mr. Raison: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the growing concern and, indeed, suspicion about the delay in publishing the report of the review body? When was that report received, and when will it be published?

Mrs. Castle: I believe that I am correct in saying that there is a Question down to the Prime Minister today on that matter.

Benefits (Industrial Disputes)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the aggregate cost to public funds of supplementary benefits paid to those involved in industrial disputes and to their dependants since the passage of the Social Security Act 1966; and if she will state, from information available to her from international sources, how this expenditure has compared with publicly-financed expenditure for the same purpose and over the same period in France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the USA, respectively.

Mr. O'Malley: Between 28th November 1966 and 4th June this year, approximately £20·7 million. The information needed for the international comparison

requested by the hon. Member is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I take it from the second part of that reply that the hon. Gentleman does not think that information would be convenient from his point of view. Is it not a fact that no other country indulges itself to the extent of obliging the taxpayer to subsidise strikes to the tune of millions of pounds a year? Is it surprising, in those circumstances, that in this country the strike has become elevated to the level of an art form?

Mr. O'Malley: I know that everything that the hon. Gentleman says on this subject, if not calculated to do so, could at least have the effect of worsening industrial relations.
The fact that none of the other countries mentioned in his Question—the United States, Japan and the EEC countries—has the sophisticated cover that we have under the supplementary benefits system does not mean that everything that they have which we have not is automatically right and that what we have is wrong. Indeed, I believe the contrary to be the case. Our supplementary benefits system is one of the most advanced and satisfactory in the world.

Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend find it somewhat curious that the Question asks about payments made since the Social Security Act 1966, and not the Social Security Act 1971, which was supposedly brought in by the Tory Government, supported by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), to stop the so-called abuses about which he speaks? Is not the real answer to the question that when it suits Tory Members to go on strike, to lock themselves up in the lavatories, it is not supplementary benefit from the taxpayer's pocket that they want, but full pay—and they receive it?

Mr. O'Malley: It would almost certainly be out of order for me to comment on the behaviour of Tory Members in the lavatories in the House of Commons. Indeed, I have no knowledge of that behaviour. However, I should point out to my hon. Friend that even a Conservative administration were not willing to accede to the extremist requests made by


the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne).

Sir G. Howe: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's embarrassment at trying to cope with the curious question posed by his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Does he accept that a continuation of the present arrangements referred to in the original Question will continue to give rise to a widespread sense of unfairness at the way the supplementary benefits system as a whole operates?

Mr. O'Malley: I note with interest—and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends and the nation will note with interest—that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now taking up a more extreme position than the previous administration, which refused to accede to requests made by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). But I tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman, an architect of the Industrial Relations Act, that we have already seen the industrial shambles created by his kind of philosophies and policies, and that we reject them.

National Health Service Staff (Cars)

Mr. Dixon: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how long she expects her interim arrangements relating to the use of cars for private purposes by midwives, nurses and health visitors in Cornwall to continue.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. David Owen): I expect that guidance on the long-term arrangements will be issued very early next year.

Mr. Dixon: Will the hon. Gentleman be rather more specific? Unless some guidance is given in the near future it will be difficult for the authority in Cornwall, or for authorities in any other part of the country, to ensure the long-term provision of midwives, health visitors and others over an extended period. Something must be decided sooner than next year.

Dr. Owen: I recognise the problem. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, those health authority staff who were previously employed by the local authority are being treated in the same way as previously under the terms of an agreement that has been negotiated. No one

in present posts will suffer as a result of the difference between the two.

Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend prepared to examine the situation that now exists concerning health visitors and midwives, who sometimes find it exceedingly difficult to make ends meet because they incur expenses travelling round to do the jobs that they are employed to do and have to pay those expenses out of their own pockets?

Dr. Owen: Staff who are permitted to use an official car for private purposes have to pay for such mileage used, but they are compensated when working on official duties.

Hospital Advisory Service

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals she has for reviving and extending the work of the Hospital Advisory Service in relation to mental hospitals.

Mrs. Castle: I attach great importance to the work of the Hospital Advisory Service. I am considering this in the wider context of my responsibilities for standards of care in the health and social services generally, referred to in paragraph 7 of "Democracy in the National Health Service". I hope to make proposals shortly. In the meantime, one Hospital Advisory Service team is continuing its visits to mental illness hospitals.

Mr. Mayhew: I appreciate the sympathetic tone of that answer. Does it imply that the Secretary of State is considering the possibility not only of restoring the work of the Hospital Advisory Service in relation to mental hospitals, but of extending it to the provision of services for the mentally sick by local authorities?

Mrs. Castle: I am considering the rôle and potentialities of the Hospital Advisory Service very widely. I am aware of the importance of the work that it has done in the area in which my hon. Friend is interested. I shall be making proposals about the mentally handicapped and the Hospital Advisory Service as soon as I possibly can.

State Reserve Scheme

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations she has received on the


subject of the Social Security Act 1973 since her announcement on the State Reserve Scheme on 7th May 1974.

Mr. O'Malley: About 50 letters.

Mr. McCrindle: Is the Minister aware that there was widespread disappointment in the pensions industry that it was not consulted by the Secretary of State before her announcement about the State Reserve Scheme on 7th May? With a view to maintaining a close association with the pensions industry, which is clearly desirable whatever Government are in power, will the Minister consider producing not a White Paper, with hard and fast proposals from the Government, but a Green Paper, as a consultative document enabling the widest possible agreement to exist between the Government and the pensions industry before these proposals take legislative form?

Mr. O'Malley: The hon. Gentleman's proposal would run counter to the desire which I thought existed on both sides of the House, that new pension proposals and their implementation should be made at the earliest possible opportunity. I therefore envisage—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find this a situation that is satisfactory to him—that the Government, in a position in which for nearly 10 years both organisations and Governments have gone over the ground in great detail, should produce a White Paper which should form the basis of consultations with organisations outside the House.

Sir John Hall: In view of the confusion that now exists and of the urgency of the matter, may I ask the hon. Gentleman when the White Paper which we are anxiously awaiting is likely to be published?

Mr. O'Malley: As soon as possible. We hope that it will be published in the very near future.

Sir G. Howe: I declare an interest, as a director of a life assurance company, but on behalf of many employers who have devoted much effort, time and expense to the preparation of schemes under the existing legislation, and on behalf of many groups of workers who have been looking forward to the fulfilment of those schemes, I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he ought not to invite

his right hon. Friend to reconsider the decision not to allow the 1973 Act scheme to proceed. Does he not recognise that the effect of a still further round of delay will complete the expiry of 13 wasted years of pensions policy since a previous Labour Government failed, for the first time, to tackle the task?

Mr. O'Malley: I could not recommend my right hon. Friend to reconsider the matter as the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes. I realise that a substantial amount of work has been put in by organisers of occupational pension schemes as a result of the 1973 Act, but the reserve scheme was an object of derision even in the insurance industry, in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just declared an interest. Certainly the present Government would not be prepared to consider the introduction of a scheme which would mean that even when it matured after 40 years there were still at least as many retirement pensioners dependent on means-tested supplementary benefit as there are today, and perhaps more.

Periodontal Disease

Mr. Moonman: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what research has been undertaken to assess the scale of periodontal disease; and if she is acquainted with current American experience and research on the matter.

Dr. Owen: Assessments of the scale of periodontal disease were included in the Adult Dental Health Survey undertaken in England and Wales in 1968 and in Scotland in 1972, and in the Child Dental Health Survey in England and Wales, undertaken in 1973. I am aware of research into the disease published in America and elsewhere.

Mr. Moonman: The figures and the risks involved in this disease are staggering. I appreciate my hon. Friend's statement, but will he take into account the fact that the population over the age of 40 is very vulnerable to this disease? That is especially so when people have lost one tooth or several teeth. Will my hon. Friend consider giving selective grants to dentists, who might produce some results from local inquiries and sort out some of the ways in which this disease can be dealt with?

Dr. Owen: I share my hon. Friend's concern. Over 80 per cent. of people who still have some natural teeth show some form of periodontal or gum disease, which is obviously at a minor stage; but if left unchecked it can lead to loosening and loss of teeth. We are discussing presently with the British Dental Association and other dental bodies the whole question of a policy for dental hygiene and care.

Disabled Persons

Mr. George Rodgers: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will make a further statement on the progress made by local authorities in identifying the needs and numbers of disabled persons in their area under the requirements of Section 1 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.

Mr. Weitzman: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will publish statistics of the progress made by each local authority in implementing Section 1 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): Figures published by my predecessor showed the progress made by the former local authorities up to last summer. Effective measurement of progress since then is not a matter of simple statistics, although as soon as possible I shall be publishing figures showing the number of handicapped persons registered with the former local authorities on 31st March last. There has been delay in collating statistics generally this year, due to local goverment reorganisation. I am carrying out a careful study of how best to measure the progress being made, and the problems being faced, by the new local authorities, in the context of their services as a whole for physically handicapped people.

Mr. Rodgers: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree, however, that great tardiness has been shown in the past by many local authorities in compiling the register and even greater reluctance in implementing the terms of the Act? Would it not be wiser if the implementation of the provisions of the Act were less optional?

Mr. Morris: I accept that there have been wide variations in progress. My

hon. Friend will accept that I am most anxious both to assist authorities in any way that I can and to monitor the progress being made. I shall make a further statement as soon as possible about my plans.

Mr. Marten: In addition to those two agreeable things, will the hon. Gentleman use the lash on dilatory authorities?

Mr. Morris: I am subjected to conflicting pressures. There are those who say that I should use the lash and those who say that I should point to good practice by local authorities. The fact is that local authorities in many widely differing parts of Britain are applying the Act fully and humanely. I shall be reporting to the House as soon as possible on further steps which we are now considering.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Will my hon. Friend please refute the argument advanced by dilatory authorities that the voluntary organisations work well in their areas and that the authorities therefore need do nothing? The contrary is true. Where there are good voluntary organisations and schemes the local authorities can be pushed into doing good work. Will my hon. Friend look into that matter?

Mr. Morris: I accept what my hon. Friend says. Furthermore, where the local authority is purposeful and progressive it excites a good response from the voluntary organisations. I shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Bromley Area Health Authority

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she will make a statement on the progress towards restructuring salary scales in the Bromley Area Health Authority following the reorganisation of the health service.

Dr. Owen: Most of the salary structures applicable to the new management posts in the reorganised NHS have now been notified to employing authorities. Bromley Area Health Authority, like other area authorities, has already been asked to prepare its scheme of management.

Mr. Stanbrook: One accepts the difficulties inherent in speeding up this process, but is the hon. Gentleman aware


that the current delay is causing many younger people increasing frustration and is forcing many of the older, more experienced people to seek earlier retirement? The older, more experienced people are the people whose services we can ill afford to lose.

Dr. Owen: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. We shall do everything possible to attempt to speed up the matter. The problem that confronted us when we took office was that the reorganisation had been long delayed. Many posts remained unfilled, and there was a large backlog to catch up on. But I agree that morale is an important factor, and we shall speed up this matter as much as possible.

Pension Rates

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she still expects payment of the new pension rates to commence on 22nd July.

Mrs. Castle: I would refer my hon. Friend to my statement on 11th June.—[Vol. 874, c. 1409–16.]

Mr. Rooker: The 25 per cent. of my constituents who are old-age pensioners will obviously have welcomed the statement made last week, but what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to bring about changes in the working conditions and payment regarding overtime in her Department, so that pensioners in future do not have to go through the worrying time through which they have gone during the last four or five weeks?

Mrs. Castle: If my hon. Friend would read the very full statement which I made to the House he would find spelt out there the very improvement for which he is asking and which I negotiated with the Staff Side as part of the settlement. That, of course, includes not only the improved overtime rates which are applicable to the Civil Service as a whole, and are made retrospective to last January, but also the special leave bonus that we are giving to the staff of my Department who are compelled to do excessive overtime in order to speed up the uprating.
I think that as the different local offices come to realise the full comprehensiveness of the improvement we have negotiated for them they will join in

pressing forward more enthusiastically with the uprating.

Mr. Boscawen: Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity of refuting the suggestion in the Press that the overtime ban is continuing in some parts of her Ministry, and also that if there had been proper consultation with the staff association before announcing the decision to uprate the pension on 21st July the dispute would never have occurred?

Mrs. Castle: If I had engaged in the normal consultation with my Department over the uprating date of 22nd July, that date would not have been possible. That was the difficulty. I was anxious, as were the Government, to get this increase in payment to pensioners and others as quickly as possible. That precluded normal consultation. But this has not been the real point of dispute with my staff, who realise why it was impossible to consult this year. They were concerned, and so was I, to see that these peaks and troughs of activity which put stress and strain and excessive overtime on them are ironed out as much as possible in future.
On the first part of the question, it is true that there are some offices where, I understand, work has not yet been resumed, or not fully resumed. I repeat what I said earlier, that I am sure that as staff increasingly come to appreciate the comprehensiveness of the concessions made to them they will drop the last remnants of their resentment.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the great bulk of the work load in uprating the pension is involved in means testing 2 million pensioners who have to apply for supplementary benefit? The right answer to this problem is not to increase the number of civil servants or to demand more overtime from the existing number but to provide a pension so generous that they will not need to apply for supplementary benefit. Will my right hon. Friend set that as her target?

Mrs. Castle: There is a good deal in what my hon. Friend says, and it is now proving much easier to get the basic pension books into payment from the Newcastle office than it is to deal with a minutiae of supplementary benefit claims for the local offices. It is on the supplementary benefit side that the delay


is still likely to occur. I agree that as a matter of principle—and quite apart from this issue—we should move to a pensions policy which takes the people of this country off the means test.

Doctors and Consultants (Private Practice)

Mrs. Knight: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is her policy with regard to the future of the private practice of medicine by doctors and consultants who also work within the National Health Service.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is her policy about the future of private practice by doctors and consultants who work within the National Health Service.

Dr. Owen: The contractual arrangements for private practice by senior hospital doctors and dentists working in National Health Service hospitals are to be considered in the joint working party with representatives of the professions which I am chairing.

Mrs. Knight: Will the Minister make sure that the committee also studies carefully the cost to the taxpayer if all treatments now being carried out privately were to become a charge on the National Health Service, taking account also of the certain loss of doctors and consultants to countries which pay more handsomely and permit freedom of professional action if that were to vanish in Britain?

Dr. Owen: No doubt those are some of the factors to be discussed, but, equally, I hope that the working party will look at the cost to the health service of people with particular skills, such as vascular and cardiac surgeons, operating on varicose veins and carrying out other operations which could be done by people without these skills.

Mr. Huckfield: Many of us on the Government side are grateful for the commitment in the Labour Party manifesto to phase out private practice, but we should be truly happy only with its complete abolition, in view of its attendant evils of fee paying and queue jumping. A start on this could be made tomorrow by ensuring that for certain consultant posts in certain specialities and

in certain geographic areas for GPs, only full-time National Health Service contracts are issued.

Dr. Owen: The balance between part-time and full-time contracts is one of the questions to be discussed in the joint working party. The manifesto commitment to phase out private practice from the hospital service is well known to the British Medical Association and to other doctors. We decided that the way to deal with this matter, since it is a contractual question, was to discuss it first in an atmosphere of trying to reach agreement.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Will the Minister explain his answer as it affects dentists? Will he state his policy for helping to overcome the particular problems of those people who are unable to obtain dental treatment under the National Health Service at the present moment?

Dr. Owen: The Secretary of State and I are deeply concerned about the number of people who are failing to obtain dental treatment within the National Health Service. We recognise that we must look at the whole structure, not just at the salaries but at the conditions for dentists, to try to make National Health Service practice more attractive to them.

Mr. Roderick: Labour Members believe that the degree of illness is what matters most and not the savings that might accrue to the National Health Service. Many of our constituents are forced to pay private fees because of the queue jumping that goes on, and some of them can never hope to obtain a position at the head of the queue.

Dr. Owen: It is difficult to explain to anyone why he should have to wait for a year and a half for an operation when he can see the same surgeon, in the same operating theatre, with the same nurses and technicians, treating privately someone who has waited only a month.

Sir G. Howe: Does the Minister appreciate that many people outside the House, both within and without the medical profession, take very little comfort from the fact that he is to be chairman of the joint working party, in view of his well-known commitment to the abolition of private practice? Will he say whether that commitment extends to the prohibition of private dental practice? Does he also


acknowledge that to abolish private practice, whether dental, medical or surgical, would only diminish the funds available for the financing of the health service itself and financing the retention of consultant care?

Dr. Owen: We are not discussing abolition but a commitment to phase out private practice from the National Health Service. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is the same thing."] The hon. Member will soon discover, if he gives the matter any serious examination, that it is not the same thing. I do not know how the right hon. and learned Gentleman has come to know my own private views, but at least I practised what I preach and always worked within the National Health Service.

Attendance Allowance

Mr. Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will give the latest figures for the number of applications for attendance allowance which have been accepted and rejected, respectively, since June 1971; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Alfred Morris: From June 1971 to March this year 334,000 claims for attendance allowance were dealt with, resulting in 227,000 awards.

Mr. Hannam: That information is vital if we are to judge the success of this important allowance, but is the Minister aware of the widespread disquiet over the large number of initial applications refused and then reversed also after involved appeals? I gather that the proportion is over 50 per cent. Can he take proceedings to improve the intial application procedures and also introduce a general disability allowance as soon as possible?

Mr. Morris: On the first point, about 80 per cent. of claimants qualify at either the higher or the lower rate. Whether an individual satisfies the statutory medical requirements is a matter for the Attendance Allowance Board. I am seized of the importance of the argument adduced by the hon. Member with regard to the review required by Section 36 of the Social Security Act 1973. We are proceeding with this and, of course, disabled people who are not entitled to the attendance allowance may well benefit from our conclusions following the review.

Mr. Greville Janner: In view of the number of families of severely disabled people who have been refused allowances, will the Minister say whether he has received a reply from the Chairman of the Attendance Allowance Board in answer to his request that the board should review its procedures? If so, what reply did he receive?

Mr. Morris: I have not so far received a substantive reply from Lord Amulree. My hon. Friend is aware of the text of my letter to the noble Lord, and I shall be informing my hon. Friend of developments at the earliest possible date.

Dr. Winstanley: Is the hon. Gentleman considering any possible extensions to the categories of persons qualifying for the allowance? Will he bear in mind the plight of those suffering from terminal illnesses, who do not qualify for the allowance until their disability has lasted for six months, and many of whom die just before they qualify for a form of help of which they are in desperate need?

Mr. Morris: This is a matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised with me before. I am aware of the difficulties of the people he mentioned. I shall have the matter in mind in the course of our review of social security provision for the chronically sick and disabled.

Occupational Pensions

Mr. Stanley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultations she is having with the TUC on the provision of pensions for those not included in good occupational schemes.

Mr. O'Malley: The TUC has made its views known on a number of matters concerning the future shape of pensions, and we plan to publish a White Paper on the Government's proposals as soon as possible. This will then form the basis for consultation and discussion.

Mr. Stanley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most beneficial effects of the 1973 Social Security Act was that it caused employers in both the public and private sectors considerably to improve and extend their existing occupational pension schemes? Is it not the case that as a result of the Secretary of State's statement this pressure to improve and extend schemes has now disappeared, and that, as a result, as from


next April many millions of working people will be worse off, as regards pension entitlement, than they would otherwise have been?

Mr. O'Malley: As the Question refers to the TUC, the hon. Gentleman might at least have taken the trouble to find out its views on the 1973 Act. The TUC was bitterly critical of the reserve scheme, the treatment of women, and the very low conditions set by the previous Government in their 1973 Act.
Secondly, in so far as the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question relates to the level of pensions which would have accrued under the reserve scheme and minimum conditions, certainly those pensions would not have been available next year, and the amount of pension built up, particularly for the older generation—men over 45 and women over 40—would have been pitifully small and, in the view of informed commentators in the insurance industry, derisory.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the 1973 scheme was grossly defective as regards transferability? Will he assure us that the new scheme introduced by the present Government will be a great improvement in that respect?

Mr. O'Malley: My hon. Friend, who has a detailed knowledge of these matters, realises that there are formidable problems which affect the question of transferability. However, I can give the assurance that the Government will take both preservation and transferability into account in their review leading up to the publication of the White Paper.

Mr. Raison: Will the hon. Gentleman say categorically whether he is having consultations with the TUC on the matter? If he is, is he having consultations with anyone else, or is this one more example where only the TUC has a say?

Mr. O'Malley: We on the Government side of the House do not have the hostility towards the TUC and the trade union movement that the hon. Gentleman has. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall answer the question. Conservative Members are making assumptions too soon. I shall answer the hon. Gentleman directly, but that first remark needed to be made. Since this Government came to

power there have been three general meetings with representatives of the TUC in my Department. I have held the meetings with the TUC, and they have been on matters raised by the TUC. There have been three meetings with the CBI on a similar basis.

National Health Service Staff

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will make a statement on the steps she now intends to take to improve the wages and conditions of nurses and other ancillary staff within the National Health Service.

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further discussions she has had with nurses' organisations about pay and conditions in the hospital service.

Mrs. Castle: I would refer my hon. Friends to the statement I made about nurses and other ancillary staff during the debate on National Health Service pay on 23rd May.—[Vol. 874, c. 691.]

Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend understand that it is generally recognised that successive Labour Governments have been far more generous in their treatment of nurses than have any Tory Government since 1945, but that all of them have been mean, and that on any reckoning nurses will not receive any increase proposed by Halsbury until the autumn? Meanwhile, inflation is continuing and the standard of living of nurses and ancillary staff is going down. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the provision of an interim settlement, at least to prevent the reduction of the standard of living of nurses and others working in the hospital service?

Mrs. Castle: Of course, I have given consideration to an interim payment, but I have come to the conclusion that it is in the best interests of nurses that the inquiry body should be free and unfettered by an arbitary down payment, in order that it can conduct the thoroughgoing inquiry for which the nurses have asked. There can be no question of the nurses' standard of living go down pending the outcome of the inquiry, because they benefit from the threshold agreement. The nurses have already had not only their


£2·25 stage 3 increase but £1·20 from the first threshold agreement increases that took place a short while ago, and they will continue so to benefit. What matters is that I have undertaken that the findings and awards shall be backdated from the date of the announcement—that is, from 23rd of last month.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the right hon. Lady change her mind and make an interim payment to the nurses, as it is obvious that the Halsbury Committee will recommend an increase for the nurses so that the National Health Service can be saved from collapse.
Will the right hon. Lady also tell the House on how many occasions she has been a private patient—queue-jumping, as one of her hon. Friends described it—and say when was the last occasion?

Mrs. Castle: If the hon. Lady wants to repeat Private Eye fabrications in the House, will she please not do it under the guise of caring for the nurses? Will she have the courage and honesty to say directly what she is alleging? As for the hon. Lady's pseudo-concern for the nurses, I remind her that she had plenty of opportunity to make a row on their behalf during the two years that the Conservative Government denied them the revaluation which I have introduced immediately.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL POLICY (MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Industry to the Parliamentary Press Gallery on 18th May regarding the performance of British industry represented the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Secretary of State for Industry in London on 18th May on the subject of Government intervention in industry represents Government policy.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The handout from the Secretary of State's Department on that speech was headed "Jokes, etc." Are we to take it from the Prime Minister's much-publicised takeover of

the right hon. Gentleman's Department last week that he considered that the jokes have gone far enough, at least this side of the General Election? Meantime, will the Prime Minister publish the Treasury's estimate of the inflationary implications of the Secretary of State's National Enterprise Board?

The Prime Minister: As to jokes, I thought the hon. Gentleman's fell rather flat. It is not true that I took over my right hon. Friend's Department last week. Indeed, several weeks ago I decided to take over a Cabinet Committee dealing with these questions. In his final question about Treasury estimates, the hon. Gentleman is no doubt basing himself on an imaginative column in yesterday's edition of The Times, which has no relation to the truth.

Mr. Sillars: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons for our pursuing public ownership is the need for the public to control investment? Is he aware that the greatest and most eloquent condemnation of private enterprise's poor investment performance came not from any Labour Members but from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Prime Minister, when he delivered a stern lecture to directors at the Institute of Directors?

The Prime Minister: I remember that speech. I dealt with this matter in a public speech last Friday, in which I repeated what is contained within our manifesto, the Government's policy, and what I said during the Gracious Speech debate.

Mr. Adley: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that nationalisation leads to happier workers, higher productivity, or better industrial relations? Is not the ultimate conclusion of this "Bennfoolery" likely to be yet again—to use the words which the right hon. Gentleman has used—that it makes no sense to take over Marks and Spencer to reach the peak of efficiency of the Co-op?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will remember that last week I answered a similar question. I wish that I had thought of that phrase. In fact, it is not my phrase and it was wrong to attribute it to me.
The investment record of public industry has been extremely successful and has been used by successive Governments for 20 years whenever there has been a need to stimulate the economy. I do not recall under the previous Government, despite all that was said about investment and the admonitions that were issued, that investment ever returned to the 1970 level. I think that that is a sufficient answer to the hon. Gentleman. If he has any other questions at any other time I shall be glad to answer them.

Mr. Kinnock: Does my right hon. Friend share my fascination regarding the reaction of the Opposition following the speeches that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has been making recently? Does he think that their reaction is inspired more by their concern for the country's economic welfare or by the fact that a number of business pimps inhabit the Opposition Front Benches?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept that theory. I think that an Opposition which so far have not offered any more than token opposition in this House have suddenly thought that they should get worked up about something. As a result, retrospectively, they are getting worked up about something which was published last year, which we said last year and on which we fought the election, but which they forgot because they were so busy justifying the three-day working week.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to waste the time of the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. In that case, will the hon. Gentleman raise his point of order at the end of Question Time?

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. George Gardiner: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between all Departments concerned in providing information relevant to the renegotiation of the terms of Great Britain's membership of the EEC.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Gardiner: In view of the consensus on Europe that is now emerging between the two Front Benches, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to inform all his Ministers of the pledge that was made in Luxembourg by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, that the Government wish to co-operate fully in the workings of the Community? Is he aware that at the moment that cooperation seems to be given or withheld depending on the personal view of the Ministers concerned with the European issue? Will he make a start by urging the Secretary of State for Employment to stop blocking progress on redundancy payments?

The Prime Minister: As to the ongoing work of the Community, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, with my authority and the authority of the Government, has said that we shall not seek to impede the work that is going on. The negotiations are certainly continuing. Today, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is trying to get some support for British agriculture and some action on behalf of the British consumer on beef, which is withheld from British consumers by the price and by the terms which the previous Government negotiated, putting our consumers and farmers in a very difficult position. My right hon. Friend is trying to ensure—whether he will be successful, no one can say—that there is a great improvement in our position compared with the terms that the hon. Gentleman so fully supported.
I have not noticed a consensus between the two Front Benches. Last week, during the debate on the Common Market, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs three times challenged the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to say whether he supported what to us is the fundamental right of the British people, namely, to decide whether we should stay in the Market when the negotiations are complete. We shall ensure that the British people have the right to show that the fullhearted consent is present which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition promised in the 1970 election and then ratted on.

Sir G. de Freitas: Is my right hon. Friend aware—I refer to the provision of information, which is the key of the question—that the Select Committee on Secondary Legislation reports that it could not ascertain from any Government Department whether certain Commission proposals had been accepted or rejected by the Council of Ministers? Will he ensure that the Government in Whitehall has the staff and organisation to provide such information?

The Prime Minister: This is a very important matter. In addition, I think that the House must have the necessary staff to ensure that this vitally important Committee can do its job. This matter was dealt with fully by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs last week, during the debate on the Common Market. He referred specifically to his hope and intention that the Select Committee could do its job to the full for the protection of this Parliament and of the British people.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, as a result of his co-ordination, of the recent threat to the Scottish whisky industry in the EEC report, which suggests that peat is an impurity? Is he aware that peat is a vital substance that is dear to the heart of mankind and to the British balance of payments? In his renegotiations will he care to say, "Hands off Scotland's peat"?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady would be wrong to think that Scottish whisky is a matter only for the people of Scotland. It is a matter of concern for consumers throughout this country and in the export markets. I invite the hon. Lady not to fash herself on this question. We have been through it all in the last year or two. We have considered not only Scottish whisky but English beer and the fatuous regulations concerning the sexual habits of hops, male and female, which are regarded as too permissive by the Commossion and on which proposals were made. We have also considered sausages, bread, and nearly everything else. This is the kind of tomfoolery with which the Government are not prepared to put up.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister whether the public statements by the Secretary of State for Employment on the Independent Television programme "People and Politics" on Thursday 9th May about industrial relations represent Government policy.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in that interview his right hon. Friend made clear his view that the Labour Government should govern in the interests of members of trade unions and people who voted Labour? Is not that a deplorable attitude? Should not the Government govern in the interests of the country as a whole?

The Prime Minister: I have read through the interview very fully—it is a long interview—and I do not draw from it that conclusion. My right hon. Friend suggested—and perhaps this is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind—that more attention would be paid to the TUC than to the CBI. That is probably what has upset the hon. Gentleman. However, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition used to boast at Question Time about how much longer he had spent with the TUC than with the CBI, and about how many more meetings he had had with the TUC than with the CBI.
I believe, in all sincerity, that the right hon. Gentleman intended to try to get a voluntary agreement with the trade unions. He failed, so, instead, we had confrontation and the three-day working week. That is why I find it a little disappointing that Conservative Members are not more pleased and have not tabled a motion, for example, welcoming the statement that the TUC made last week.

Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend put at rest some of the more turbulent and unstable minds on the Opposition benches by pointing out that there is no difference between himself and the Secretary of State for Industry? Will he also confirm that there is no political significance whatever in the fact that he took over the Industrial Sub-Committee, whilst leaving alone the Treasury and the Foreign Office?

The Prime Minister: I thought that I had made it clear that I entirely agree with the broadcast of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and, indeed, with all his other actions, statements and speeches in this Parliament. I do not know how my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) got into his mind this idea about the Foreign Office and the Treasury. I have not taken over any Departments. I have taken over a certain degree of co-ordination in the matters to which I have referred. As First Lord of the Treasury, I keep a very close interest in Treasury matters, as does any Prime Minister from any party. The same is true, obviously, of the Foreign Office.

Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister has again emphasised that he has taken responsibility in Cabinet committee for co-ordination of all these matters. Will he confirm that he approves of everything that the Secretary of State for Industry has said in these past few months? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT before tomorrow's debate the list of the first 100 companies initially to be controlled by the Government if they have the opportunity?

The Prime Minister: I have already said in the House that I support what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has said, because he was speaking entirely in the terms in which I addressed the Labour Party conference last year and of the Labour Party manifesto. The Leader of the Opposition obviously does not understand a Government who carry out their manifesto commitments, because he himself certainly never tried to do so. If he had given a little attention to this aspect during the election campaign he might have understood what we were saying at the time. His only nationalisation challenge was on North Sea gas and oil—a battleground which I welcomed. We shall have our proposals in due course and we shall then see what the right hon. Gentleman thinks about them.
Our policy on planning agreements with the biggest companies was set out long before the General Election. Planning agreements are a highly respectable method used by most of the countries in the EEC. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman never got on to them,

instead of relying on bitter and vicious speeches to the Institute of Directors and his famous remark about Lonrho. The right hon. Gentleman might have done better if he had planning agreements with 100 firms.

Mr. Heath: Will a list of the 100 firms appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow?

The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to what I said about this during the debate on the Gracious Speech. Our policy will be carried out, and I have said that all matters for public ownership will require legislation. The legislation will appear when our proposals are ready, as I promised during the debate on the Gracious Speech.

Mr. Thorpe: The Prime Minister has said that he has decided to take certain responsibility for discussing matters relating to the Secretary of State for Industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] Is the Prime Minister aware that it is very important that we should be in no doubt on the matter, and therefore I shall rephrase my question. Is it not right that the Prime Minister said that he has taken unto himself responsibility for having discussions on certain matters within the province of the Secretary of State for Industry? If, as I believe, that is correct—and I listened to the right hon. Gentleman—will he tell us—[Interruption.] I am sure that the Prime Minister wishes to hear me, even if his back benchers do not. Why is it that the Department of Industry has been singled out for such special treatment?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in both formulations.

Mr. Skinner: He usually is.

The Prime Minister: But, of course, the right hon. Gentleman would not understand this sort of situation. I do not complain of that—he is not in a position to do so. But had his manoeuvrings with the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) between 28th February and 4th March proved successful, he would by this time have understood. [Interruption.] I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to hear me, as he said I wished to hear him. Had his manoeurvings with the right hon. Member for Sidcup after the election during


that lost weekend proved successful, he would be this time have understood that it is very usual to have a series of Cabinet committees. We have had them for a very long time in this country. The Prime Minister of the day takes the chair of some of them, but that does not mean that he is taking departmental responsibility. If I take the chair of the Overseas Policy Committee, that does not mean that I am acting as Foreign Secretary; it means that it is concerned with matters of importance to the Cabinet as a whole.
Some weeks ago, I took over the chairmanship of the Industrial Legislation Committee. The right hon. Gentleman would be surprised at how many other Cabinet committees I chair—indeed, at how many Cabinet committees the right hon. Member for Sidcup and our predecessors chaired. This morning, I took the chair of a Cabinet committee on the public ownership of land. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), as a good Liberal, would have supported all that we agreed upon.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister aware that I am deeply grateful to him for his elucidation. Obviously, all these matters will be carefully considered. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether it is his view that these Cabinet committees work better if study papers are or are not released to the Press before consideration?

The Prime Minister: It is my view that the Government should take the decisions on these matters. No study papers coming before any Cabinet committee have been released to the Press.

Later—

Mr. Blaker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, relating to Question No. Q3. In view of the fact that it is clear from the Prime Minister's supplementary reply to me that he has not read that part of the interview to which I referred, and in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered Question No. Q1 he linked with it Question No. Q10. Subsequently, I rose on a number of occasions, but you refused to call me, despite the fact that my Question No. Q11 was in almost exactly similar terms to the two which were grouped and answered.
Recently, a Select Committee of the House considered the whole matter of Question Time. Taking into account its recommendations about the number of identical Questions that could be answered, that it expected that you would take into account the fact that a good many Questions would be answered that were similar, and also bearing in mind that on this occasion only two Questions—No Q1 and No. Q10—were linked, it seems to me, considering what was said by the Select Committee, that it should have been possible—perhaps more than possible; indeed, highly probable—to call me to put a supplementary question on the subject of public ownership, and that perhaps it might well have been a good gesture on your part to give me a chance on subsequent Questions to my right hon. Friend which also covered this general matter. I hope you will look into this matter seriously.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. The grouping of Questions is not for me but for the Minister concerned. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's complaint about not being called, I would have thought that he was the very last Member in the House to complain about not being called.

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY SYSTEM

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): In Washington last week I attended the final meeting of the Committee of Twenty of the International Monetary Fund on reform of the international monetary system. At its meeting in Rome in January the committee had decided that for the time being it was impracticable to reach agreement on


a comprehensive international monetary reform and that attention should, therefore, be concentrated on a number of steps which could be taken immediately.
With permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the text of the agreed communiqué recording the conclusions of the Washington meeting, but I will say something more now about the main points.
First, to help rebuild the framework of international co-operation and the authority of the International Monetary Fund, we have agreed to establish a committee at ministerial level to continue the supervision of the international monetary system and its evolution, and to begin the process of amending the IMF Articles to restore their effectiveness.
Secondly, to discourage "beggar-my-neighbour" policies by countries facing unusual balance of payments deficits following the high prices of oil and other commodities, we have agreed on tentative guidelines for the management of floating rates, and on a voluntary pledge against trade and other current account restrictions.
Thirdly, to help in meeting special and immediate financial needs of many developing countries, we have agreed to set up the new "Witteveen oil facility" offered by oil-producing countries for countries in need. We have also agreed to extend existing IMF financing facilities in favour of developing countries, to establish a development council to study the broad question of transfer of real resources to developing countries, and to reconsider the idea of linking the creation of new special drawing rights, or SDRs, with development assistance.
Fourthly, we have agreed on a new definition of the SDR in terms of a basket of specified amounts of 16 major world currencies. The SDR will then reflect the average movement of all currencies, instead of being related to an artificial price of gold or any one particular currency. I believe that this new international asset will be widely welcomed. Oil-producing countries lending funds for the Witteveen oil facility have, indeed, already welcomed it.
Finally, on the subject of gold, which was considered by the Group of Ten out

side the Committee of Twenty, I have little to add to the report given to the House by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General last Thursday. It was agreed to remove any formal obstacle which might have been held to exist to the pledging of gold in borrowing transactions between monetary authorities. The monetary authorities were already free to sell gold to the market and hence to pledge gold in borrowing from the market if they wished to do so.
The IMF is to give further study to future arrangements, including the possibility of realising a part of the large holdings of gold in the International Monetary Fund. The members of the Committee of Twenty were unanimous in wishing to phase gold out of any central rôle in the international monetary system, and to replace it by SDRs. I supported all those decisions and was instrumental in reaching agreement to several of them.
I believe the conference has taken some useful steps towards dealing with the threat to the international monetary system posed by the exceptional increase in the price of oil and other commodities.

Mr. Carr: We welcome the further limited progress made at Washington toward international monetary reform and, in particular, the renewed determination expressed there to discourage the "beggar-my-neighbour" policies by individual countries to solve their own special balance of payments deficits. We also welcome the promise of help for developing countries arising out of the oil situation.
I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer four questions. First, he refers to a Committee at Ministerial level. Can he say something about the size and membership of that Committee? Secondly, he refers to beginning the process of amending the IMF Articles to restore their effectiveness. Can he give any idea about the scale, purpose and content of the amendments to which he referred?
Thirdly, I notice that in the communiqué it is stated that the committee agrees on the urgent need for stronger action to combat inflation in their individual countries. Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer today, or in the near future, say anything about what part Britain is


to play in further strengthening our measures to combat inflation?
Fourthly, can we be assured—I hope, judging from some of the Chancellor's closing remarks, that we can—that he will follow the example of his predecessors in Governments of both parties and make sure that the British Government continue to offer a positive and constructive rôle in developing this international reform?

Mr. Healey: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome of the achievements of the conference.
With regard to the four questions the right hon. Gentleman raised, first the committee at ministerial level will, in effect, be of the same composition and membership as the Committee of Twenty. It is, in effect, the Committee of Twenty in a new form.
Secondly, the amendments which are being considered are primarily designed to regularise practices which have been developed since floating began several years ago and are particularly to regularise floating. No decision has yet been taken to support such amendments. Work is now being undertaken on the drafting of the amendments which would have this effect and which Ministers in the new interim committee will have to consider when the draft is available in February.
Thirdly, with regard to Britain's rôle in combating inflation, all my colleagues were immensely impressed by the success we have had in reducing the rate of increase in the money supply and in reducing the public sector borrowing requirement from its excessively high level of last year.
On the question of the contribution which Britain hopes to make, I can say without exaggeration that both the agreement on the use of gold as collateral for borrowing between central banks and the agreement to reconsider the link between the SDR and developing countries arose largely as a result of the actions of the British representatives.

Mr. Duffy: In view of the problem of international liquidity and the consequential danger of restrictive trade measures following the sharp increases in oil prices, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the ministerial committee which has been set up to strengthen the IMF

will be adequate, especially in view of the restrictive measures already undertaken by France?

Mr. Healey: I do not think that it is fair of my hon. Friend to suggest that France has taken restrictive measures on international trade. There may be different views about the effect of France's internal domestic measures in reducing the total demand in France, including demand for foreign imports, and there may be different views about the efficacy of the measures to which the new French Government have addressed themselves. But by and large the French Government have adopted a package of measures similar to those which I put to the House in my Budget speech on 26th March. The only countries which have taken measures directly affecting foreign trade are Italy and, to a smaller extent, Denmark.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the Chancellor aware that the latest and final meeting of the Committee of Twenty will be a profound disappointment to those who expected it would measure up to the demands of the world economy? Does he agree that he took nothing to Washington and brought nothing back of significance?
We regard it as regrettable that the right hon. Gentleman's statement has not mentioned even once the problem of inflation, although I recognise that the communiqué did. Can he point to a single thing in the communiqué or statement which will stop world economics going down into "slumpflation" of the worst possible sort?

Mr. Healey: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he betrays in his remarks a certain ignorance of the situation. The views he has just expressed are not shared by any of the Governments represented in the Group of Twenty.
With regard to the specific questions the hon. Gentleman raised, we are concerned that all the actions taken to assist the developing countries, which will suffer more than any of the developed countries will from the recent oil price increases, are a real contribution towards meeting their problems. I am surprised that as a representative of the Liberal Party he does not seem to be aware of their real importance and the extent to which they were welcomed by representatives of the developing countries at the conference.

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the emphasis on the rôle of SDRs in international monetary arrangements will be very much welcomed? May I ask him to introduce some sense of urgency in obtaining a link between SDRs and helping the developing countries?

Mr. Healey: I think that I played some part in persuading those countries which were reluctant to accept the possibility of a link between SDRs and the needs of the developing countries to do so. I very much hope that the reconsideration now in train will lead to decisions about a new creation of SDRs in the near future from which the developing countries can benefit disproportionately.

Mr. Tugendhat: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the decision taken about gold is a step towards the demonetisation of gold or a step back from the demonetisation of gold? Is he aware that those of us who were not present at these discussions find it difficult to reconcile what has happened with the aims which he put forward? Would he not agree that this is, almost by definition, a temporary situation? Can he say what he believes is likely to be done about setting a value to gold in the use to which it is to be put?

Mr. Healey: I know that the hon. Member follows these matters closely. The Committee of Twenty was unanimous in wishing not to fix a new official price for gold. If I were to make a judgment about the arrangements to use gold as a collateral for borrowing between central banks I would say that it is entirely neutral from the point of view of the demonetisation or remonetisation of gold because it cannot lead to an increase in the total stock of monetary gold in the world, and it is envisaged that a minimum period for such loans should be fixed. This would ensure that such loans were not a disguised way of transferring gold or selling gold from one central bank to another, although I, like my European colleagues, would wish that this were possible. The hon. Member will accept that the official price for gold is artificially low. Equally, the free market price for gold is artificially high, because those who own most of the gold are not selling it on the market. It is inevitable that the price which is agreed between central banks using gold as a collateral will be higher

than the official price and lower than the current market price. If the IMF proceeds with its present intention of releasing some of its gold stocks, hopefully to create additional liquidity for the developing countries, that will tend to depress the price of gold and to reduce the total amount of gold in monetary stocks. The same effect would arise from the American Governments intention to allow private citizens to buy gold, if they bought it from the American Government. All of these questions are still for consideration.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the opinion of some rather hard-bitten international financial observers the success of this conference owes a great deal to his and to British initiative and that this is to the credit of the Government and the delegation? May I ask on what criteria the SDRs for developing countries will be given? Will there be more emphasis on infrastructure, schools, roads and irrigation and perhaps rather less on industrial development? On this question of gold and collateral, are there not dangers that this could be a slightly regressive element of the package?

Mr. Healey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his initial remarks. No decision has yet been reached on how the new creation of SDRs shall be distributed. It is the view of the British Government, and nearly all the Governments in the International Monetary Fund, other than the German and American Governments, that there should be some link between the creation of the new SDRs and the provision of aid to the developing countries. I will certainly work to achieve that end. If the Fund decides to create a link between SDRs and aid to the developing countries, that will not be related to any specific projects. The question of project control and selection is more a matter for loans which are made by the International Bank or other international authorities, such as the Development Assistance Group of OECD.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the changes relating to gold will be much welcomed as being a move towards realism? Was not one of the arguments that used to be advanced against altering the price of gold that it would be highly inflationary? Now that gold reserves have effectively


been increased by about 60,000 million dollars, may I ask the Chancellor to confirm that the need to eliminate the non-oil deficit of countries still remains a top priority?

Mr. Healey: If the use of gold as a collateral led to an increase in liquidity which would not otherwise have been achieved, it could be inflationary. If I may give a personal view, I doubt whether any Government, except possibly the Italian Government, will make use of this collateral as a means of achieving loans which they could not have achieved by other means. I think that with Italy it simply makes it marginally easier for one potential lender to lend money to Italy than might otherwise have been the case.
All of us have agreed in theory that it is desirable that the countries with large oil deficits arising from the inability of the oil-producing countries to absorb goods to the value of the oil sold should not seek by restrictive or other measures to close those oil deficits. I do not know whether that theoretical obligation will be generally accepted. I believe it is important that so long as the absorptive capacity of the producer countries is as limited as it now is the consuming countries should be satisfied to eliminate their non-oil deficits and seek to finance their oil deficits by other means.

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend accept that this meeting which he has attended is just another of the many that we have witnessed over the past few years in which capitalism within the West generally is trying to combat the ever-broadening and deepening crisis? Will he also accept that the exercise being gone into with Italy concerning gold is merely a way of postponing the debt and could be described as pawning Italy's assets? Will he, therefore, categorically deny that there will be any attempt to agree with the other Common Market countries about the use of our natural assets, in particular oil, in the same way in view of the crisis with which we are faced? Will he also say whether he told the French, arising out of M. Simonet's remarks about selling oil to the EEC at the same price as to the British consumer, that as a country, as a Labour Governmnet, we would not wear any of that?

Mr. Healey: In so far as it is my responsibility, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asks in the latter part of his question. As to the first part of his supplementary question, I can assure him that international debt is not a monopoly of capitalist countries. There are quite a number of Communist countries, or, as they would call themselves, Socialist countries, which have very large international debts which create serious economic problems for them and their creditors. As for co-operation inside the International Monetary Fund, my hon. Friend will be glad to know, if he did not know beforehand—as I suspect may be the case—that there are now a number of Communist countries which are members of the IMF and which played a full and constructive part in our proceedings.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: While I do not entirely share the Chancellor's views on the price of gold, I accept that there are important differences here. Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the new arrangement between the S.D.R. and the "basket" of currencies, which implies no relationship in any real sense, merely expresses a weighted average of the degree of the financial irresponsibility of 16 countries?

Mr. Healey: Relating the value of SDRs to a "basket" of real money is preferable to relating it to the value of a commodity whose real use is limited to the construction of false teeth and costume jewellery.

Mr. Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend familiar with the widespread disquiet throughout the Labour Party about this method of major decision making? Is he further aware, when he announces that we are now committed not to impose any restraints on international trade, that this is contrary to Labour Party and trade union policy? Therefore, would he not agree that there are other ways in which we should come to conclusions rather than on this individual basis of international agreement, without consultation with the party he represents domestically?

Mr. Healey: With respect to my hon. Friend, I am not aware that the assertion he made at the beginning of his supplementary question is accurate. I have not


found it to be so in my own contacts with my party. With regard to trade restrictions, the future growth of this country depends very largely on the annual increase in our exports. Steps we took which led to retaliation against us and to a constriction of international trade would be gravely damaging to all the purposes which our party seeks to serve.

Mr. Robert Carr: With regard to timing, the Chancellor referred to the programme being available about February, eight months from now. I presume that means it could not possibly be approved by the committee until the autumn of 1975. Is it not possible to inject more urgency and speed into this very urgent matter?

Mr. Healey: I think the right hon. Gentleman is confusing several matters. All the decisions taken by the Committee of Twenty are likely to be ratified by the IMF as a whole when it meets in Washington in September. There are a number of matters—notably the decision whether or not to amend the articles of the IMF, whether or not to create a link between SDRs and aid to the developing countries, and whether or not to revise the basis on which the IMF quotas are now distributed—which come up for decision in February. All the other decisions to which I have referred will, I hope, be ratified by the IMF as a whole at its meeting in September.
The decision on gold—which is not one for the IMF but for the Group of Ten, which is not a body of the IMF—takes effect from now.

Following is the information:

Communiqué of the Committee of the Board of Governors on International Monetary Reform and Related Issues

1. The Committee of the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund on Reform of the International Monetary System and Related Issues (the Committee of Twenty) held its sixth and final meeting in Washington on 12th-13th June 1974, under the chairmanship of Mr. Ali Wardhana, Minister of Finance for Indonesia. Mr. Johannes Witteveen, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, took part in the meeting which was also attended by Mr. Gamani Corea, Secretary-General of the UNCTAD, Mr. Frederic Boyer de la Giroday, Director of Monetary Affairs of the EEC, Mr. RenéLarre, General Manager of the BIS, Mr. Emile van Lennep, Secretary-General of the OECD, Mr. Olivier Long, Director-General of

the GATT, and Sir Denis Rickett, Vice-President of the IBRD.

2. The Committee concluded its work on international monetary reform; agreed on a programme of immediate action; and reviewed the major problems arising from the current international monetary situation.

3. The programme of immediate action is as follows:

(a) Establishment of an Interim Committee of the Board of Governors of the Fund with an advisory rôle, pending establishment by an amendment of the Articles of Agreement of a Council with such decision-making powers as are conferred on it.
(b) Strengthening of Fund procedures for close international consultation and surveillance of the adjustment process.
(c) Establishment of guidelines for the management of floating exchange rates.
(d) Establishment of a facility in the Fund to assist members in meeting the initial impact of the increase in oil import costs.
(e) Provision for countries to pledge themselves on a voluntary basis not to introduce or intensify trade or other current account measures for balance of payments purposes without a finding by the Fund that there is balance of payments justification for such measures.
(f) Improvement of procedures in the Fund for management of global liquidity.
(g) Further international study in the Fund of arrangements for gold in the light of the agreed objectives of reform.
(h) Adoption for an interim period of a method of valuation of the SDR based on a basket of currencies and of an initial interest rate on the SDR of 5 per cent.
(i) Early formulation and adoption of an extended Fund facility under which developing countries would receive longer-term balance of payments finance.
(j) Reconsideration by the Interim Committee, simultaneously with the preparation by the Executive Board of draft amendments of the Articles of Agreement, of the possibility and modalities of establishing a link between development assistance and SDR allocation.
(k) Establishment of a joint ministerial Committee of the Fund and World Bank to carry forward the study of the broad question of the transfer of real resources to developing countries and to recommend measures.
(l) Preparation by the Executive Board of draft amendments of the Articles of Agreement for further examination by the Interim Committee and for possible recommendation at an appropriate time to the Board of Governors.
These measures are described in more detail in the statement attached to this communiqué.

4. Members of the Committee expressed their serious concern at the acceleration of


inflation in many countries. They agreed on the urgent need for stronger action to combat inflation, so as to avoid the grave social, economic and financial problems that would otherwise arise. They recognised that, while international monetary arrangements can help to contain this problem, the main responsibility for avoiding inflation rests with national governments. They affirmed their determination to adopt appropriate fiscal, monetary and other policies to this end. In the discussion Members of the Committee urged that the multilateral trade negotiations in the framework of GATT should continue to be regarded as a matter of priority.

5. The Committee noted that, as a result of inflation, the energy situation and other unsettled conditions, many countries are experiencing large current account deficits that need to be financed. The Committee recognised that sustained co-operation would be needed to ensure appropriate financing without endangering the smooth functioning of private financial markets and to avert the danger of adjustment action that merely shifts the problem to other countries. Particular attention was drawn to the pressing difficulties of the most severely affected developing countries. Members of the Committee therefore strongly emphasised their request to all countries with available resources and to development finance institutions to make every effort to increase the flow of financial assistance on concessionary terms to these countries.

6. In concluding its work on international monetary reform, the Committee agreed to transmit a final Report on its work, together with an Outline of Reform, to the Board of Governors. These documents will be published shortly.

DETAILED STATEMET

Detailed statement of immediate steps to assist the functioning of the international monetary system

Introduction

1. The Committee recognises that it will be some time before a reformed system can be finally agreed and fully implemented. It therefore proposes that, in the interim period, the Fund and member countries should pursue the general objectives set out in paragraph 1 of the Outline and should observe, so far as they are applicable, the principles contained in Part I of the Outline. It further proposes that a number of steps should be taken immediately to begin an evolutionary process of reform and to help meet the current problems facing both developed and developing countries, and calls upon members to collaborate with the Fund and with each other to give effect to those proposals as set out below.

Interim Committee of the Board of Governors on the International Monetary System

2. The Committee recommends the establishment of an Interim Committee of the Board of Governors on the International Monetary System, with an advisory rôle in those areas in which the Council referred to in paragraph

31 of the Outline will have decision-making powers, namely, in supervising the management and adaptation of the monetary system, overseeing the continuing operation of the adjustment process, and dealing with sudden disturbances which might threaten the system. It notes that the Executive Directors are accordingly preparing for adoption by the Board of Governors a Resolution to establish the Interim Committee. It is envisaged that the new Committee will hold its first meeting at the time of the Annual Meeting in September.

The adjustment process

3. The Committee recognises that in the interim period, with significant changes in prospect for the world balance of payments structure, there is a need for close international consultation and surveillance of the adjustment process. It recommends that countries should be guided in their adjustment action by the general principles set out in paragraph 4 of the Outline. It calls upon members to co-operate with one another and with international institutions, during the current period of exceptional and widespread payments imbalances, to find orderly means to deal with these imbalances without adopting policies that would aggravate the problems of other countries, and to promote equilibrating capital flows: in this connection the Committee has endorsed the immediate establishment of a facility in the Fund to assist members in meeting the initial impact of the increase in oil import costs. The Committee calls upon the Fund to exercise surveillance of the adjustment process through the Council (or, for the time being, the Interim Committee of the Board of Governors) and the Executive Directors, on the lines of the procedures set out in paragraphs 5–10 of the Outline, and subject for the time being to the following provisos, namely that:

(a) the Fund will seek to gain further experience in the use of objective indicators, including reserve indicators, on an experimental basis, as an aid in assessing the need for adjustment, but will not use such indicators to establish any presumptive or automatic application of pressures;
(b) determination of what is a disproportionate movement in reserves will be made in the light of the broad objectives of member countries for the development of their reserves over a period ahead, as discussed with the Fund; and
(c) the pressures which may be applied to countries in large and persistent imbalance will continue to be those at present available to the Fund.

Exchange rates

4. The Committee stresses that, during the interim period, exchange rates will continue to be a matter for international concern and consultation and attaches particular importance to the avoidance of competitive depreciation or undervaluation. The Committee notes with satisfaction that in accordance with its recommendation the Executive Directors are adopting a decision on guidelines for the management of floating exchange rates during the present period of widespread floating.

Controls

5. The Committee recommends that, during the interim period, countries should be guided by the principles set out in paragraphs 14–17 of the Outline in relation to controls and to co-operative action to limit disequilibrating capital flows. The Committee attaches particular importance to the avoidance of the escalation of restrictions on trade and payments for balance of payments purposes during the interim period. The Committee invites members to subscribe on a voluntary basis to the Declaration concerning trade and other current account measures for balance of payments purposes attached to this statement. The Committee invites the Executive Directors to establish the necessary procedures in connection with the Declaration, and to make arrangements for continuing close co-ordination with the GATT.

Global Liquidity

6.(a) The Committee calls upon members to cooperate with the Fund during the interim period in seeking to promote the principle of better management of global liquidity as set out in paragraph 2(d) of the Outline. It recommends that the Fund should assess global reserves and take decisions on the allocation and cancellation of SDRs in accordance with paragraph 25 of the Outline, and should periodically review the aggregate volume of official currency holdings in accordance with paragraph 19 of the Outline and, if they are judged to show an excessive increase, should consider with the countries concerned what steps might be taken to secure an orderly reduction.

(b) The Committee further recommends that the Fund should give consideration to substitution arrangements.

(c) Finally, the Committee recommends that there should be further international study in the Fund of arrangements for gold in the light of the agreed objectives of reform.

Valuation of the SDR

7. The Committee notes with satisfaction that, following its recommendation concerning the interim valuation and interest rate of the SDR, the Executive Directors are adopting decisions on these questions.

The special interests of developing countries

8. The Committee recognizes the serious difficulties that are facing many developing countries, and agrees that their needs for financial resources will be greatly increased. It urges all members with available resources to make every effort to supply these needs on appropriate terms. To this end it calls upon countries with available resources and upon development finance institutions to make arrangements to increase the flow of concessionary funds, and to give consideration to various measures including the redistribution of aid effort in favour of countries in greatest need, interest subsidies, and short-term debt relief on official loans in the special case of countries without access to financial markets. The Committee urges the Executive Board to proceed to an early formulation and adoption of a new facility in

the Fund under which developing countries would receive longer-term balance of payments finance. The Committee is not unanimous on the question of establishing a link between development assistance and SDR allocation. The Committee is agreed that the Interim Committee should reconsider, simultaneously with the preparation by the Executive Board of draft amendments of the Articles of Agreement, which it is envisaged would be presented for the approval of the Board of Governors by February 1975, the possibility and modalities of establishing such a link.

Ministerial Committee on the transfer of Real Resources

9. The Committee recommends the establishment of a joint ministerial Committee of the Fund and World Bank to carry forward the study of the broad question of the transfer of real resources to developing countries, and to recommend measures to be adopted in order to implement its conclusions. It invites the Managing Director to discuss with the President of the World Bank the preparation of appropriate parallel draft Resolutions on the establishment of such a joint ministerial Committee for adoption by the respective Boards of Governors. It recommends that the joint ministerial Committee should also give urgent attention to the problems of the developing countries most seriously affected by exceptional balance of payments difficulties in the current situation, bearing in mind the need for coordination with other international bodies, and that preparatory work on this aspect should be started immediately in advance of the establishment of the Committee.

General review of quotas

10. The Committee notes that work has started on the current general review of Fund quotas and urges the Executive Directors to complete their work as soon as possible, bearing in mind the general purposes of the reform.

Amendments of the Articles of Agreement

11. The Committee has asked the Executive Board to prepare draft amendments of the Articles of Agreement, as needed to give effect to Part II of the Outline or as otherwise desired, for further examination by the Interim Committee, and for possible recommendation at an appropriate time to the Board of Governors. In particular draft amendments should be prepared on the following proposals:

(a) to establish the Council referred to in paragraph 31 of the Outline;
(b) to enable the Fund to legalise the position of countries with floating rates during the interim period;
(c) to give permanent force to the voluntary pledge described in paragraph 5 above concerning trade or other current account measures for balance of payments purposes;
(d) to authorise the Fund to establish, as and when agreed, a Substitution Account;
(e) to amend the present provisions concerning gold;


(f) to authorise the Fund to implement a link between development assistance and SDR allocation; and
(g) to introduce improvements in the General Account and in the characteristics of and rules governing the use of the SDR, as well as any other consequential amendments.
It is envisaged that such draft amendments, if agreed, would be presented for the approval of the Board of Governors at latest by the date fixed for completion of the current general review of Fund quotas, i.e., by February 1975.

ATTACHMENT

Declaration on Trade Measures

The Committee of the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund on Reform of the International Monetary System and Related Issues has stressed the importance of avoiding the escalation of restrictions on trade and payments for balance of payments purposes. Accordingly, certain members of the Fund have expressed their wish to subscribe to a Declaration as follows to give effect to that recommendation.

DECLARATION

A. A member of the Fund that subscribes to this Declaration represents thereby that, in addition to observing its obligations with respect to payments restrictions under the Articles of Agreement of the Fund, it will not on its own discretionary authority introduce or intensify trade or other current account measures for balance of payments purposes that are subject to the jurisdiction of the GATT, or recommend them to its legislature, without a prior finding by the Fund that there is balance of payments justification for trade or other current account measures.

B. A member that subscribes to this Declaration will notify the Fund as far in advance as possible of its intention to impose such measures. If circumstances preclude the Fund from making the finding referred to in A above promptly after such notification, the member may nevertheless impose such measures, but will withdraw the measures, within such a period as may be fixed by the Fund in consultation with the member concerned, if the Fund finds that there is no balance of payments justification for trade or other current account measures.

C. In arriving at the findings referred to above, the Executive Directors are requested to take into account the special circumstances of developing countries.

D. In connection with this Declaration arrangements will be made for continuing close co-ordination between the Fund and the GATT.

E. This Declaration shall become effective among subscribing members when members having 65 per cent. of the total voting power of members of the Fund have accepted it, and shall expire two years from the date on which it becomes effective unless it is renewed.

COAL INDUSTRY

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Eric Varley): As the House is aware, the Queen's Speech announced an urgent examination of the future of the coal industry. The aim of this tripartite examination, conducted under my chairmanship jointly with the NCB and the three unions in the national consultative machinery, has been to give the industry a new status, perspective and security.
We are aiming to complete our work by the late summer or early autumn but, in accordance with the need stated in our manifesto for a report within three months, we have produced an interim report setting out the facts of the situation and the conclusions we have reached so far. It is being published this afternoon and I have arranged for copies to be available in the Library and the Vote Office.
It is now quite clear that there is a secure, and indeed prosperous future for coal, providing it can retain its newfound competitive position. Potential demand could reach 150 million tons in the mid-1980s. The increases in the price of oil that have taken place over the last year or so have transformed the energy scene. The Government are determined that coal should not be at the mercy of short-term fluctuations caused by variations in price and supply of competing fuels. However, we recognise and accept—as I am sure does everybody in the industry—that the future prospects of the industry should be determined by its long-term competitiveness.
Demand of 150 million tons is well above current output. All sides of the industry accept that a substantial increase in output is attainable with the present capacity. I am sure that the House will welcome the joint production drive which has been launched and will also share the hope that the NCB and the unions will quickly be able to adopt a sound and effective productivity scheme.
The examination has recommended, and the Government have accepted, the adoption of the NCB's Plan for Coal. This proposes new capital investment of some £600 million over the period to 1985 in order to provide 42 million tons of new capacity to replace that lost by depletion.
The NCB should now press ahead with preparations for the development of the Selby coal field as quickly as possible. This will, of course, be subject to the normal planning procedures. Selby will be invaluable in providing power station coal and the decision to develop it will enable the CEGB to give the Drax II coal-fired power station a firm place in their investment programme for the current year. Opencast production will be expanded from 10 million tons to 15 million tons a year.
With proper commercial pricing the NCB should in future be able to cover the real costs of producing coal and we are working out with the board the precise nature of its financial objective.
During our examination we have been constantly aware of the human costs of coal, and the legacy of chronic ill health. Outstanding among these is the problem of pneumoconiosis. All members of the House will recognise the shadow that this has cast over the industry. We have accepted that it would be tragic for the Coal Board and the unions to fight out in the courts claims for compensation in respect of 39,000 sufferers from this disease. The Government support the view that a scheme by which all these claims might be settled without recourse to proceedings is a more sensible and more humane method of dealing with this problem.
The Government will therefore be bringing before Parliament proposals to contribute to relieving the burden of the board's finances in respect of such a scheme for existing sufferers, though it seems only right that the industry itself should make provision for the future. The NCB and the unions are now formulating a scheme to deal with this.
The examination will be continuing the investigation of a number of more detailed points with a view to presenting a final report in the autumn. In particular the research and development working group, under my honourable Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) will be examining the whole question of long-term uses of coal.
It gives me pleasure and pride to present this report to the House, with the bright future it forecasts for the coal industry, to welcome the positive plans

that are being put forward for the industry's development and, perhaps most important of all, to welcome the new spirit of co-operative endeavour demonstrated by the ready participation of all sides in this examination.

Mr. Hannam: We welcome this short statement on the interim report, which we shall study carefully.
The Opposition accept the need for continued investment in coal and our own Coal Industry Act last year was proof of our support for the coal industry. We believe that every effort should be made to sustain coal output. This will involve a great deal of expenditure on research and development, on new mining techniques, on underground gasification and on other areas of new technology. The development of the new Selby field will provide a real opportunity for improved productivity.
In view of the serious decline in output—of nearly 10 per cent.—that has taken place in the coal industry since last year, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that any investment in future should be related to increased productivity and to output? What steps will he be taking to ensure this?

Mr. Varley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the general welcome he has given to the report.
He asked about output and the decline in productivity since the end of the coal strike. This largely is due to the lack of development work that took place during that period. We want to see development work get ahead very quickly. The investment required to make sure that that development work goes ahead will be forthcoming.

Mr. Hardy: My constituents and I will welcome this statement, since it is positive evidence that Britain will pursue broadly-based energy policies. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) said that he hoped that coal production could be sustained. I hope that my right hon. Friend's statement will invoke such a response from the mining industry that it will be increased. Would he make two things clear—first, whether the 150 million tons will include any export potential, and second, whether we can be absolotely sure that the Government help to those suffering from pneumoconiosis will


be expedited so that tragedy is not further protracted?

Mr. Varley: I hope that the NCB will start talking immediately to the mining unions about pneumoconiosis, so that a scheme can be worked out and brought into operation quickly. There is great urgency about this.
The aim of the coal industry is to get production up to 150 million tons, and that will take a superhuman effort. If we get up to that figure, there will be export potential, but we certainly need all the coal that we can get at the moment for our own energy needs, particularly in power stations. The House will be aware that the CEGB at the moment has to import about 4 million tons of coal a year.

Mr. Skeet: The Secretary of State mentioned a productive capacity of 150 million tons which he said could be achieved provided that the industry maintained its competitive position. Is he aware that there is an outstanding claim for an extra £20 a week and that over the past year productivity has declined from 47·2 cwt per manshift to 42·7, that a large part of that has been incurred not since the closures but over the last year and that in North Yorkshire, which has some of the best pits, there has been a decline of 12·5 cwt? He must bear these factors in mind since they will mitigate against any proposition that he may have for increasing productive capacity—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions, please, on the statement.

Mr. Skeet: While I welcome the ideas on Selby, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that mechanisation in the pits already exceeds 93 per cent.? How will he build in additional investment capacity when the maximum has already been reached?

Mr. Varley: When he has had time to read the report, the hon. Gentleman will see that all sides in the examination agreed that there was great scope for productivity and therefore for production gains. That is certainly the commitment of all involved. The examination did not concern itself with wages. I know that there have been reports in the newspapers about wage claims—or rather about proposals for wages—but the policy

of the NUM is determined not by one area leader but by the NUM itself. The two representatives of the NUM in the examination, Mr. Gormley and Mr. Daly, very much want to co-operate along the lines of the examination.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: We all greatly welcome this statement. My right hon. Friend mentioned 39,000 pneumoconiosis cases. Would he bear in mind not only those who are still living and suffering but also the widows of those who have passed away as a result of this dreaded disease? Would he also bear in mind those suffering from emphysema and bronchitis and see whether they can be included? In so far as this is a long-term measure as well as an interim plan, should we not bear in mind the fact that the manpower in the industry is getting older and that this country needs coal regardless of what the oil barons may say about the industry and its competitiveness? Will he do all he can to encourage newcomers, particularly youngsters, to enter the industry?

Mr. Varley: My hon. Friend is on to a very important point when he asks about the age of miners. The age structure in the mining industry should concern everyone. It is much higher than the average age in British industry. Nearly 55 per cent. of all men in the industry are between 40 and 60. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is an aging industry. We still need men to go down the pit and to dig the coal that we need from the coal face.
On the question of pneumoconiosis, our top priority will be given to existing sufferers. This is right. If we were to do nothing, we should have the spectacle of the NUM and the other mining unions trying to fight claims through the courts. The union has plans to take four cases to the courts later this year. They could probably get about 3,000 cases through the courts in the next few years, but many of the 39,000 would receive no benefit at all, and top priority must be given to them.

Mr. Adam Butler: Could the Secretary of State say more about the productivity scheme, and whether it is likely to be a national scheme? Would he not agree that it would be preferable that it should be on a colliery basis, for instance,


since only by breaking it down in that way shall we provide the necessary incentive to increase productivity? Would he not agree that pneumoconiosis is the only penalty of working in the mines which distinguishes that occupation from others? Because of this, will he encourage the National Coal Board to establish the most generous compensation fund as soon as possible?

Mr. Varley: Apart from a small incidence of it in associated industries, pneumoconiosis is unique to the coal industry. Although I dare say there will be some criticism from certain areas about our proposal for this scheme—I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman is criticising it—anyone who wants to criticise should visit any chest clinic in a mining area and see some of the men suffering from this disease. As for productivity, it is not for me to get bogged down in details of how that should be worked out. That is something for conciliation, good sense and common sense within the industry. I know that that is how the unions hope to approach it.

Mr. Swain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a general welcome in the coal fields for his statement, particularly his reference to pneumoconiosis and its effect on the working population in the industry? But is he also aware that, at that rate of extraction, in present circumstances, even the Selby coal field will not be the long-term salvation that it is hoped to be? Are he and the NCB and the union investigating the possibilities of extracting the rich seam of coal under the county of Oxfordshire?

Mr. Varley: Exploration is certainly going ahead and all possibilities of further development are being explored. My hon. Friend is correct: if we were to do nothing, if we were not to invest the additional £600 million, production would go down to about 80 million tons by 1985. This investment is necessary to hold production up. I am very pleased that my hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about pneumoconiosis sufferers, welcomes the scheme.

Mr. Grimond: When he has finished his examination of the industry, will the right hon. Gentleman lay before the

House a paper showing the comparative availability, costs and suitability of various sources of energy, so that we can make some judgment about the amount to be invested in it, and also the Government's proposals for fuel economy? Would he come up and see us some time in Orkney and Shetland? First, we should like to see him. Second, it is very important, since we are the Texas of Europe, that we should know about the general fuel policy. Third, he is a man with vast experience—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must call to order even the right hon. Gentleman. This is not the time for speech making.

Mr. Grimond: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I had no intent to make a long speech. As this statement shows, there are immense repercussions on human beings of the development of fuel, of which the right hon. Gentleman has great experience. We do not want to repeat the mistakes of the last century.

Mr. Varley: If I can get a pair, I should like to go to Orkney and Shetland. I hope to visit the area within the very near future to look at some of the developments there and to talk to the people involved.
I want to give more information, and over the next few weeks before the House goes into the Summer Recess I want to make a statement about nuclear reactor policy and also about North Sea oil and gas, along with a statement on conservation, energy efficiency and energy substitution. These are important matters, and I shall bear in mind all the suggestions made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Sillars: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this early implementation of our election manifesto pledge will be welcomed in the South Ayrshire coalfield? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is fair for the Labour Government to ask ordinary miners and their families to consider all the implications of today's statement and this report when the miners come to determine their attitude to the social contract between the Labour Government and the TUC?
Finally, can my right hon. Friend elaborate a little on the position relating to Scotland? My right hon. Friend mentioned an investment of £600 million and linked that with Selby. Can he say


what will be the Scottish coalfield's share of that investment?

Mr. Varley: I cannot break down the investment figure, but I am sorry if I gave the impression that the whole of the additional £600 million will be associated with Selby. That is not the case. Only a proportion will go there, and the rest will be for other coalfields in other parts of the country.
On the question of reaction to the report, I can only repeat that during the examination the mining unions cooperated fully. They recognised what the Government have done for their industry, and they appreciate the other measures that we have announced.

Mr. Cormack: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he has said will go some way towards reassuring many of us, but does he agree that if the spirit of Aberdeen is persisted with the whole of the coal industry and all his plans, which I personally applaud, could be put in jeopardy?

Mr. Varley: I do not know precisely what the hon. Gentleman is implying, but I imagine that he is referring to the Scottish miners' conference at Aberdeen or, for that matter, the Barnsley miners' conference. The policy of the NUM on wages is determined not by speeches of individual area leaders but by the NUM in conference. I think that that conference is to take place at Llandudno during the first week of July.

Mr. Kelley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while the provisions in the report show a more generous attitude to those suffering from pneumoconiosis, there is a lack of understanding about other contributory respiratory diseases such as bronchitis and emphysema which arise from working within the industry and should be regarded as such and dealt with accordingly?

Mr. Varley: I cannot go into the details of the scheme, because it is not yet in being. What is to happen is that the Government having authorised the board to enter into talks with the unions, those talks are to take place. I hope that very soon a scheme will be devised and announced. It is for those engaged in the talks to consider some of the associated

diseases and complaints that go with pneumoconiosis.

Mr. Crouch: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I speak as a friend of the coal industry and I greatly welcome this injection of £600 million into the industry. May I, however, come back to the question of productivity? Productivity goes up in the coalfields when they are under the threat of closure. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he, as Secretary of State, is taking action with the NUM to ensure that the miners respond to this wholehearted support from both sides of the House for this injection of money so as to make sure that when the industry is supported in this way it delivers not only a social contract but a work contract, too?

Mr. Varley: From the discussions that we have had in the tripartite examination it is clear that there is a will and a desire to co-operate in the sense of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that what he has said will be a boost to the morale of the men in the industry? The fact that Drax II is to be coal-fired—and I hope that there will be more such stations—will do more to give the men a feeling that there is a future for their industry than anything else that could be done.
Secondly, does my right hon. Friend realise that his statement on pneumoconiosis means that throughout the coalfields thousands who feel that they been brutally neglected will now realise that at last there is a Government who have got their values right?

Mr. Varley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that statement. I know that there will be a ready response and that the interim report will be very well received throughout the coalfields of Britain.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Can my right hon. Friend say what part the present policy of the NCB played in the discussions? In particular, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the so-called gentleman's agreement on pricing, which did so much harm to the industry in the 1950s and 1960s, is scrapped and the board is assured that it will be able to act with


flexibility appropriate to good commercial practice?

Mr. Varley: As I think the House appreciates, energy pricing is difficult because no one knows what is to happen to oil prices and how they will fluctuate. We are determined to ensure that if there are fluctuations in oil prices, nobody will start back-tracking on the coal industry. The Government want to foster the coal industry and to make sure that production is increased.

Mr. Rost: As one of the main recommendations of the Wilberforce Inquiry was that productivity deals should be implemented, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why a genuine productivity deal has still not been implemented even though the NCB has put forward and negotiated various proposals?

Mr. Varley: I cannot answer for what happened during the previous administration. As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, the Wilberforce Inquiry followed the 1972 strike. I do not know what happened under the Conservative administration, but I can say that there seems to be a determination by all concerned to make sure that this time a productivity scheme is put into operation.

Mr. McGuire: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on this side of the House welcome the opportunity to put into practice many of the things which he advocated when he was on these back benches? We are all pleased about the way in which the pneumoconiosis issue is to be settled. It would be most unseemly to have that dragged through the courts.
What worries miners' Members is that my right hon. Friend has a negative attitude towards or a negative power in the future planning of the type of fuel to be used at power stations. Will there be any change in the present practice? This is one of the crucial questions faced by

my right hon. Friend, and I do not think that it is good enough—and I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree with this—to leave it to the CEGB to determine what type of fuel will be used and all that my right hon. Friend can say is that he will not give permission for that, rather than be able to impose his will on the board.

Mr. Varley: I know how concerned my hon. Friend is about coal-fired power stations. I know he will welcome the fact that Drax II is the first coal-fired power station to be built for 10 years. On that basis the CEGB will want to talk to the Government further about the future fuelling of power stations. I know my hon. Friend realises that power station policy is bound up with the Government's decision, which I hope to announce soon, on nuclear reactor policy.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members
rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES

Ordered,
That the Estimates set out hereunder be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee:

Class III, Vote 2,—Agricultural Support (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland).
Class III, Vote 5,—Other Agricultural Services (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland).
Class III, Vote 8,—Fisheries (Scotland) and Herring Industry.
Class IV, Vote 17,—Trade and Industry and Employment (Scottish Economic Planning Department).
Class VIII, Vote 5,—Other Environmental Services (Scotland).
Class XIII, Vote 23,—Other Services (Scottish Office).
Class XVII, Vote 2,—Rate Support Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]

CINEMATOGRAPH AND INDECENT DISPLAYS BILL

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Cinematograph Acts 1909 and 1952 and, so far as it relates to things done in the course of cinematograph exhibition, section 1 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959; to make fresh provision with respect to the display, advertisement or distribution of indecent matter and to the use of machines for the viewing of indecent pictures; and for purposes connected with those matters.
In essence, this is the Bill which was before the House at the Dissolution of the last Parliament. It was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr). It foundered at the General Election, and many people in all parts of the House, and all over the country, regretted it. When it was introduced, it had a great measure of support from the then Opposition and from the Liberal Party. Although it was understandably amended somewhat in Committee and ran into certain difficulties, and although in its later form it still needed some amendment—a fact which I am ready to acknowledge—nevertheless I suggest that there is a basic need for this piece of legislation.
I am seeking to reintroduce it today because I was very disappointed when the Home Secretary intimated a few weeks ago that he had no such intention. I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department with us. I trust that she will feel able to persuade her right hon. Friend to change his mind as a result of the considerable all-party support that this measure still enjoys.
It is very important to emphasise that it is not a measure of censorship. I do not hold with rigid censorship. I believe that it creates far more problems than it solves, and I do not suggest that we should embark on that sort of measure. But if we are not concerned—and I am not—with what people read and see, we should be concerned with the often tawdry touting for custom by third-rate hucksters whose sole aim seems to be to excite our baser instincts and to destroy the beauty and dignity of the human body for perverse commercial ends.
I do not wish to deny any man the right to amuse himself as he pleases. But I sympathise strongly with constituents of mine who find it embarrassing for their children to browse freely at railway station bookstalls and to wander inquisitively through the streets of our great capital and of other cities.
It is with children that we should be particularly concerned in bringing forward a measure of this kind, but not just with children, because there are many people who find their decency affronted and who find themselves offended by displays outside cinemas in this city and up and down the land and by the station bookstall displays to which I referred just now.
If cinemas find that words are sufficient in the Evening Standard and other such publications for advertising what they are showing, they should be obliged to rely on similarly sober injunctions on their hoardings, and I do not think that that would necessarily affect their takings very much, either.
Any legislation of this kind is fraught with problems. My right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary made this plain when he introduced the Bill and during its Committee stage, and we are embarking upon a very difficult task in reintroducing a Bill of this kind. But that is no excuse for not doing it, because this is a problem to which there should be a legislative solution.
The commercial debasement of sex and the exploitation of filth has increased, is increasing and, in the words of a famous motion, "ought to be diminished." I think that it is appropriate at this point to quote just what my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary said on Second Reading:
There has been a commercial competition to break down the ordinary reticences and to indulge with impunity in increasingly outrageous displays. At least, the overwhelming majority of people are outraged."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November 1973; Vol. 864, c. 329.]
They are outraged, and they deserve the support of this House in curbing their outrage.
I paid a visit to Copenhagen last year with a parliamentary delegation. That beautiful and fair city, which is one of the most delightful capitals of Europe, has indeed been debased in many of its


streets. Anyone wandering round is constantly affronted by lewd displays and by the tawdry commercial "sexploitation" confronting him. I should hate to think that our capital city got any nearer Copenhagen than it is at the moment. We ought to do all we can to make sure that this progress is halted and that people are protected from this terrible intrusion into their privacy.
Since coming to this House, my own postbag has had a steady trickle of letters—I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House have the same experience—from people who are affronted and offended in this way.
If we want a nation fit for our children to grow up in, we cannot afford to ignore this aspect of commercial sex. We cannot cure the appetite for this kind of literature and film, and I do not suggest that we should. But, just as the Street Offences Act drove from our streets scenes and events which were repugnant to many people, so this Bill could have a similar effect with regard to indecent public display.
Without detaining the House any longer, I hope sincerely that I shall be given leave to introduce the Bill, and I trust that

the Home Office will think again and assist its speedy passage through the House in this Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. Malcolm Rifkind, Mr. Peter Mills, Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson, Mr. Ron Lewis, Mr. Edward Bishop, Mr. Simon Mahon, Mr. Raphael Tuck, Mr. Donald Stewart, Mr. Mark Carlisle and Mr. Norman Fowler.

CINEMATOGRAPH AND INDECENT DISPLAYS

Mr. Patrick Cormack accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Cinematograph Acts 1909 and 1952 and, so far as it relates to things done in the course of cinematograph exhibition, section 1 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959; to make fresh provision with respect to the display, advertisement or distribution of indecent matter and to the use of machines for the viewing of indecent pictures; and for purposes connected with those matters: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12th July and to be printed. [Bill 65.]

Orders of the Day — HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ETC. BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

AMENDMENT OF COMPANIES ACTS AS TO DIRECTORS' REPORTS

(1) The Companies Act 1967 shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this section.

(2) In section 16 (additional general matters to be dealt with in directors' reports) in subsection (1) there shall be added after paragraph (f)—
(g) in the case of companies of such classes as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State, contain such information as may be so prescribed about the arrangements in force in that year for securing the health, safety and welfare at work of employees of the company and its subsidiaries and for protecting other persons against risks to health or safety arising out of or in connection with the activities at work of those employees.

(3) After subsection (4) of the said section 16 there shall be added—
(5) Regulations made under paragraph (g) of subsection (1) above may—

(a) make different provision in relation to companies of different classes;
(b) enable any requirements of the regulations to be dispensed with or modified in particular cases by any specified person or by any person authorised in that behalf by a specified authority;
(c) contain such transitional provisions as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient in connection with any provision made by the regulations.

(6) The power to make regulations under the said paragraph (g) shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(7) Any expression used in the said paragraph (g) and in Part I of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 shall have the same meaning in that paragraph as it has in that Part of that Act and section 1(3) of that Act shall apply for interpreting that paragraph as it applies for interpreting that Part of that Act; and in subsection (5) above "specified" means specified in regulations made under that paragraph."—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.37 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): I

beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause amends the Companies Act 1967 so as to enable us to require directors to include in their annual reports to shareholders information about what their companies are doing on health and safety matters.
The clause follows up a recommendation of the Robens Committee, and, of course, is very much in line with current thinking. In Chapter 2 of its report, the committee recommended that directors' reports should be required to include prescribed information about accidents and diseases suffered by the company's employees, and about measures taken by the company in this regard.
The Robens Committee made this recommendation because it considered that a requirement of this kind would stimulate more effective interest in health and safety at board level. It thought that it would concentrate the minds of chairmen and directors most wonderfully if the company's health and safety performance had to be accounted for in public.
I share their views. I also think that a requirement of this kind is a valuable addition to the amendments that we have been making to the Bill, designed to strengthen its provisions for stimulating the free flow of information. It is surely right that information of this kind should be published. I hope, too, that shareholders will take an interest id what is said, and will be as interested in a company's safety record as they are in its profitability. Perhaps companies will be able to learn from each other by this means. Many companies have extremely good safety and health policies, which could serve as an example to others, and the inclusion of information about these policies in annual reports will provide a good opportunity to draw attention to what is being and can be done.
During Second Reading several hon. Members noted the omission of any follow-up of this Robens recommendation. I said then that this requirement would be included in future new companies legislation. But, in view of the importance of the subject, I think we are fully justified in amending the Companies Act in this one respect in advance of the more comprehensive amendments which are planned for later legislation.

Mr. David Madel: We on this side of the House welcome the new clause.
I was particularly interested in what the Under-Secretary of State said about the need for shareholders to be equally conscious of their firm's safety as well as its profit record. I also liked what he said about the need for companies to learn from each other by publishing in annual reports information on their health and safety records.
I hope that the Minister will confirm that my thinking on the clause is correct. In line 8 it states,
and its subsidiaries and for protecting other persons against risks to health or safety".
I assume that this is intended to strengthen Clause 3 and in a sense could be tied in with Amendment No. 25, which we shall be discussing later. In other words, there is a need for companies to pay attention to health and safety matters involving people who live near their work unit.
We certainly accept the clause and welcome what the Minister said about it. I ask him to confirm that my thinking is correct vis-à-vis Amendment No. 25 and Clause 3. We certainly wish the clause to be incorporated in the Bill.

Mr. Michael Latham: I support the clause and wish to add my voice to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel).
I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State two questions to which I realise he may not be able to give answers off the cuff.
Paragraph (g), which is proposed to be put into the Companies Act 1967, states,
in the case of companies of such classes as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State, contain such information as may be so prescribed".
Those of us who served on the Committee know that a great deal in the Bill is to be dealt with by regulations. It would be helpful to the House if the Minister would share with us any ideas that he has about the size of the companies involved and the nature of the disclosures. It may be that he is still thinking about the matter. However, while fully supporting the clause, I suggest that there should be the fullest consultation with industry about this matter,

because it is essential that these should be practical requirements. We discussed this aspect many times in Committee.

Mr. Harold Walker: I confirm right away the understanding of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel). This matter can be seen in the context of Amendment No. 25 and the further provisions for information contained in it.
The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) will recognise that we are acting in accordance with the structure of the Bill. This is an enabling Bill, as he will readily appreciate.

Mr. Michael Latham: Mr. Michael Latham
indicated assent.

Mr. Walker: I am glad to note the hon. Gentleman's assent. Therefore, it is right not to spell the matter out in the Bill, but to provide the powers embodied in the proposed clause. I share the hon. Gentleman's view about the need for consultation. It would be wrong for me at this stage to try to anticipate the necessary consultations and to diminish the flexibility of the way that we shall proceed. We want to be flexible and we shall have the consultations.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

DUTIES OF LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES AND THE COMMISSION IN RESPECT OF PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PREMISES LIABLE TO ENDANGER HEALTH OR SAFETY

(1) In such cases as may be prescribed it shall be the duty of a local planning authority (as defined by section 290 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and by section 275 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972) to refer to the Commission any application submitted to them for planning approval for the construction of premises to which this section applies.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Commission to examine all applications referred to it pursuant to subsection (1) of this section with a view to satisfying itself that the construction of the premises (including the installation of plant therein) and any processes, operations or activities proposed to be carried on within those premises would not, so far as can reasonably be foreseen, endanger the health or safety of persons who may work therein or of any other persons who may be affected thereby.

(3) If the Commission are so satisfied it shall give its consent to the application concerned, but it may attach to such consent such


conditions or requirements as to the alterations of the premises or the plant or as to modifications of the said processes, operations or activities. as it may thing necessary to secure the health or safety of the persons referred to in subsection (2) of this section; and if the Commission are not so satisfied it shall refuse its consent to the application.

(4) A local planning authority shall not give planning permission in respect of any application referred to the Commission under the provisions of this section unless the Commission has given its consent to the application; and if the Commission has attached to its consent any conditions or requirements the planning permission shall be subject to the same conditions or requirements

(5) The premises to which this section applies are any premises in which it is proposed that persons shall be at work and any premises of a class prescribed for the purposes of section 1(1)(d) of this Act.—[Mr. David Watkins.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Watkins: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause seeks to provide stringent provisions to control the building of potentially dangerous industrial plants and complexes which are likely to emit obnoxious fumes, noises, smells and generally to make life unpleasant, if not specifically dangerous, to people living within their vicinity.
I should like to explain how the clause proposes to achieve this aim.
First, it makes it mandatory for all planning authorities to submit to the Health and Safety Commission all planning applications for the construction of premises as defined in subsection (1) or, indeed, as prescribed by the Secretary of State.
Secondly, the clause places upon the commission a mandatory requirement to examine in detail all proposals submitted to it and to satisfy itself that there will be no danger not only to persons employed in those plants but to other persons, residents and others, moving about outside but in the general vicinity of the proposed site. That includes people not only living in the area but in adjacent shopping centres and on busy roads.
It will be readily perceived that if a potentially dangerous plant exploded or had a catastrophic fire and there was an immediately adjacent shopping centre crowded with people, a busy highway, or motorway, a great deal of damage and

injury could be caused. Therefore, the clause places a mandatory requirement on the commission to examine in detail all proposals submitted to it and to ensure that there is no potential danger to people not only working in the plant but within its vicinity.
4.45 p.m.
The clause gives the commission power to take several courses of action. It can attach mandatory requirements for alterations to design and construction where it believes these to be necessary. Furthermore, it can make a mandatory order for modifications to be made to the processes to be carried on within the plant under consideration. Where it is not satisfied that the plant meets health and safety requirements and, furthermore, that it cannot be modified to meet those requirements, the commission will have power to refuse consent to the application submitted by the planning authority.
Finally, the clause provides that no planning authority can give consent to such a plant without the approval of the commission.
I realise that what will be in everyone's mind is the recent appalling disaster at Flixborough. We meet in the shadow of this terrible disaster to consider this Bill on Report. I have no doubt that all hon. Members want to ensure that nothing of that kind happens again. The clause seeks to create the Health and Safety Commission as the authority with the power and the technical backing, which is no less important, to do just that.
New petrochemical processes and products are being created in escalating numbers. That means that there is a vast potential danger, which is increasing all the time, in plants using petrochemical processes as a result of technological developments which are taking place.
As we witnessed at Flixborough, it is not only people working within plants but people living and moving about in their vicinity who are at risk. We need a body with power and authority, backed by technical expertise, to investigate planning applications for the construction of comparable plants in future, first, as to their location and. secondly. as to their nature.
We already have the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, which is a Government body independent of the Electricity Council and of the generating boards, which has a high measure of responsibility and technical competence to examine and consider the safety of nuclear installations. The principle of the power of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and of what that inspectorate does is very comparable with the principle of what the new clause proposes that the Health and Safety Commission should do.
I make that point to illustrate the fact that I am not introducing a completely new, novel and ingenious idea but am seeking to build upon something which in principle already exists and to adapt the principle and apply it to the Health and Safety Commission.
I come next to an illustration of how such an independent and qualified body could modify the design of plants which may be submitted to it. One of the things which have emerged from the many tragedies at Flixborough is that the control room of the plant was sited immediately adjacent to the point of the initial explosion. In a situation such as that, such a siting means that the one place where monitoring devices give an indication of immediate danger and from which an instantaneous shutdown could be operated, and the one place from which safety devices could be instantaneously brought into action to minimise the danger, is the first place to be destroyed.
One of the things which the commission would be enabled to do, with the technical backing that it would have, would be to examine the design of plants to ensure that the control room was not in a situation such as that I have mentioned, where it would be the first place to be destroyed. It is the one place where something might be done to prevent a disaster, and this provision would ensure that such a place would not be destroyed.
The commission ought to have power to examine planning applications in this matter. It is the one body which is in the position of having the technical backup, the prestige and the authority to do this. The clause would give it the authority, plus a mandatory requirement

to exercise its powers in the direction which the clause seeks to direct.
I remind the House again that we have recently witnessed a terrible explosion in which 28 of our fellow citizens have died and in which whole villages have been devastated. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis), when following up his Private Notice Question on 3rd June, asked the Secretary of State whether he would
now concentrate his and the Government's attention on ensuring the safety and wellbeing of the community and ending this rape of the environment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June 1974; Vol. 874, c. 870]
My hon. Friend's vivid phrase sums up what we have to do. The clause seeks to provide an instrument to do it. I commend it to the Government and to the House.

Sir Bernard Braine: I rise to support the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins), who has made his case with compelling argument and admirable clarity. Certainly if the House accepts his clause, those communities whose environment is endangered by a growing concentration of industrial hazards will have secured a most valuable safeguard. At best, it may well prevent another Flixborough. At worst, it should be possible to prevent a bad situation—I shall mention such a situation shortly—from getting worse.
Let there be absolutely no doubt about the need for a provision of this kind. In paragraph 295 of its report, the Robens Committee said:
Our attention has been drawn to a number of locations in this country where highly explosive or flammable substances are kept in such quantities that any failure of control—however remote the possibility—could create situations of disaster-potential.
At paragraph 297 the committee said:
Situations of considerable potential risk to the public can be created in a variety of ways and circumstances … The problem can be particularly acute in sites or areas where there is a gradual accretion of potentially hazardous development by different employers. Existing technical problems may be compounded by new and possibly incompatible developments nearby, and administrative arrangements can become complicated because of the number of authorities that might become involved in one way or another.
The paragraph continues:
there have been expressions of public concern from time to time about the possibility that


official controls may be inadequate or inadequately co-ordinated".
As examples of that concern, the Robens Committee specifically mentioned the Adjournment debate on the subject of fire hazards in Canvey Island which I initiated in the House on 24th November 1970 and reports on other hazards in our neighbouring district of Thurrock. The Robens Committee rightly pointed out that to some extent local authorities have powers to prevent the creation of neighbourhood risks by the use of their development control powers under the town and country planning legislation. But what happens when, as in the case of Canvey Island, successive Governments have persistently, deliberately and crudely ignored the protestations of the local planning authority, the local district councils and the local people, and have forced unwanted oil refineries on the top of existing and known industrial hazards, piling risk upon risk without any regard to the totality of the effect that their separate decisions have upon the environment and also the health, safety and peace of mind of the local inhabitants?
Is it not the most appalling indictment of such an attitude on the part of successive Governments that we had to wait for a Flixborough before anyone in authority took any notice of our predicament in South-East Essex?
Let us consider that predicament. I make no excuse for going into this matter in some detail, because what is happening to one community may happen to others, and there is a moral to be drawn and a lesson to be learned here. Canvey is an island of less than 4,000 acres, on about half of which some 30,000 people have been encouraged by the planning authority over the years to establish their homes. On the other half there is a heavy and growing concentration of high fire risk installations. First, we have the largest methane gas terminal in the United Kingdom, with storage for 110,000 tons of frozen gas below ground level, and a variety of other products. I have checked the figures and am told that, in all, some 24·6 million gallons of inflammable material is stored in that one installation.
Next door we have the Texaco oil storage tanks, with 5¾ million gallons of Class A highly inflammable products, and 7¾ million gallons of Class B products, which are only slightly less inflammable.
Then we have London and Coastal Oil Wharves, Ltd. which is licensed to store 61·2 million gallons of chemical products—50·5 million gallons of Class A products and 10¾ million gallons of Class B products. I am advised that this includes some 1,200 tons of cyclohexane, the material which lay at the heart of the Flixborough disaster. A spokesman for the company let it be known, no doubt in order to allay our anxiety, that this was by no means the most dangerous chemical stored in that particular installation.
The hon. Member for Consett rightly drew our attention to the dangers to people living or working near a potential risk. There are 32 residential caravans and three occupied cottages immediately adjacent to the storage installation that I have just mentioned. There is a small number of other houses within 150 feet of it. The main residential area, where 30,000 of my constituents live, begins about a quarter of a mile away. This is the area of risk in which successive Secretaries of State for the Environment have seen fit to authorise the building of two new oil refineries.
I have said before, and I say again that this is planning turned upside down. For those of us in South-East Essex, the Department of the Environment has become a sick joke. It seem quite impossible to make the mandarins of Mar-sham Street understand that in this day and age there is no excuse whatsoever for adding hazards to those which already exist. In doing so they must inevitably compound the chances of something going wrong.
5 p.m.
Some years ago the Department of the Environment drew up guidelines for plan fling authorities on the siting of our re fineries and their implications. It was with some difficulty that I managed to get a copy in 1972. It was promised to me and then conveniently forgotten and I had to press for it. That paper drew attention to the dangers of air pollution and made the important point that there could be no guarantee of complete immunity from occasional malodorous emissions. The plants on Canvey will stand in the path of the prevailing south-westerly winds which exposes not merely the population of Canvey but one ten times greater in neighbouring South-East Essex and Southend to pollution.
This will be additional to an existing nuisance. My constituents constantly complain to me about the emissions from the existing oil refineries to the west in Thurrock. I have initiated a number of Adjournment debates on the subject. Yet such considerations of amenity have been completely swept aside by successive Secretaries of State.

Mr. William Baxter: Has there not existed a responsibility upon the local authorities to look after the interests of their areas? I recollect that when I was a member of Stirling County Council and interested in the port of Grangemouth a conference of port health authorities was taken around that area by the local authority representatives, and we were shown with pride and satisfaction what they had achieved in this direction. Before condemning succeeding Governments the hon. Member should at least be a little critical of the local authority.

Sir Bernard Braine: I can well understand the surprise of the hon. Member at what I am saying. One would naturally expect the planning authority to be the first line of defence in a matter of this kind. If, however, he will be patient with me I will illustrate just how little influence the planning authority can have on matters when the interests of foreign oil companies are involved.
The guidance paper to which I was referring also drew attention to the substantial flow of tanker traffic and the need for suitable roads to avoid congestion and an unacceptable level of noise and fumes. The fact that Canvey is an island dependent upon two bridges converging upon one roundabout, and is, therefore, far more vulnerable if anything should go wrong than any other place in the Kingdom, and its single fire engine might have to be supplemented by fire rescue services from the mainland seems to have been totally ignored. Imagine the difficulties which would arise if at the same time residents were trying to get off the island.
It was small comfort to read in The Sunday Times on 9th June:
The potential for disaster on Canvey … is sufficiently great for Essex Council's emergency planning group to have devised a meticulous scenario for the very serious situation which could develop on the island.

I am glad to see the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), present, because if there is anyone in the House who understands this problem it is he, and I am grateful for the support he has consistently given me over the years in trying to alert the authorities to our situation on Thameside.
The guidance paper also pointed out the danger of fire and stated that
Most refinery fires will not affect areas outside the refinery itself. It must be accepted, however, that an extensive fire is always possible and this should be borne in mind when considering possible siting locations. It would obviously be undesirable, for example, for a refinery to be so placed that a serious fire could involve other premises or cut off access to such premises. Equally it would be wrong to site one close to a plant at which bulk storage of other hazardous materials takes place.
Armed with this excellent advice, it is not surprising that Essex County Council, the planning authority, has consistently opposed the building of oil refineries on Canvey Island but has been overruled. What is astonishing is that Governments which advise the planning authorities in this way should themselves blithely ignore that advice.
Why is it that Governments fail so often to see the problem in the round? In the debate in 1970, to which the Robens Committee's Report refers, I outlined some of the warnings and the narrow escapes we had already experienced on Canvey. I drew attention to the dangers—indeed, the folly—of introducing oil refineries into an area where there were already far too many major fire hazards for the health and safety of my constituents. What I said I have been careful not to repeat too frequently because one naturally does not wish to arouse unnecessary fears. I said
I have no wish to be alarmist. Indeed, I am choosing my words carefully. But the Aberfan disaster crept upon us largely unawares precisely because no one ever thought it was his responsibility to calculate the risks being taken. I beg my hon. Friend to make sure that his colleagues understand fully that before any deliberate decision is taken to add to the existing fire hazards on Canvey Island, they must remind themselves that the safety of more than 25,000 human beings is involved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November 1970; Vol. 807, c. 378.]
All that has happened since then is that the population has increased by some


5,000, and we have had two oil refineries forced upon us.
It is against this background, where the local planning authority has been reduced to impotence and the views of the local people have been completely thrust aside, that I have been waging my campaign to get Governments to accept that there must be an inquiry into the totality of the effect of industrial planning decisions on our Thameside communities.
So it was that where we were debating the Langley oil storage fire last November I drew attention to the lack of coordination in these matters and asked the then Minister for Local Government Development, the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), to call a halt to work on the refineries and to order an inquiry. His reaction was interesting. He was the first Minister ever to admit that he was anxious about the situation and, wanting to see for himself what that situation was, he told us that he had flown by helicopter over the Thames estuary. He said:
From that experience I believe that my hon. Friend is right—that we ought to consider very carefully the whole implications of any further development of this kind in the area. One can only get a knowledge of this by really looking at the area, and one gets a very good knowledge by looking at it from the air."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 16th November 1973; Vol. 864, c. 904.]
He told me that he could not answer for the Government but that he would talk to Ministers about the need to take a round view of the problem. He said that he was considering and discussing the matter with his colleagues.
We then had a General Election, and during the campaign the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) who is now the Secretary of State for the Environment, made a solemn pledge in a letter to my constituents that if he became the Secretary of State for that Department—and, wonder of wonders, he did—he would certainly take a fresh look at the whole refineries situation. The present Prime Minister also got in on the act and authorised a letter to one of my constituants in which he said:
The new Labour Government would re-examine the proposals for the construction of these refineries in the light of strong objections from local residents.

In a cause of this kind I am willing to accept allies from whatever quarter they may come. However, before Flixborough the Secretary of State declined to grant me the inquiry I wanted. Even after Flixborough he still declines to take action until the report on the disaster was available. The disaster makes no difference to our situation: it was bad before; it is bad now.
The clause is limited, as I understand it, only to future planning applications, and I doubt, therefore, whether it has any immediate relevance to the distressing situation I have described. The Minister has won golden opinions by his sensitivity to the question of safety. I am, therefore, taking this opportunity to press our case and to ask the hon. Gentleman to say when he comes to reply whether the Health and Safety Commission will have any powers to deal with our situation. One oil company has full detailed planning permission, and is planning and building now, and the other has already received outline planning permission. Could the commission, for example, insist that the planning permission be revoked?
The Prime Minister gave a specific pledge during the election that our situation would be examined again. I expected that promise to be implemented straight away. I did not think that we should be forced to wait until the lessons of the Flixborough disaster had been learnt. That disaster was bad enough, but our predicament existed before that. I expect the Minister to be explicit when he replies, and to explain whether the clause, which in essence the whole House must welcome, has any message for the people of Canvey, and, if not, whether he will convey the views I have expressed this afternoon to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister.

Mr. John Ellis: I support the amendment. All hon. Members owe a debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) for his expedition and expertise in tabling it so that we could have this important debate.
I hope that no one thought that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) spoke with too much passion. Representing the constituency in which the disaster at Flixborough occurred, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if anyone is in any doubt about that he


should go to Flixborough and see what remains of that plant and the devastation in the surrounding villages. He should visit the relatives of those who were killed and witness the manifest tragedy that was caused.
I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman in that he has on his hands a potentially very dangerous situation. The people I represent can now sleep soundly. The plant is destroyed; the damage has been done. We must ensure by any means possible that we prevent such a disaster occurring anywhere else. The disaster at Flixborough occurred in a comparatively modest plant employing 550 men on a shift basis. It was not a great geographical concentration such as the hon. Gentleman describes at Canvey Island.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) asked "What about the local planning authority?" What about the authority, indeed? Flixborough started out as a plant producing fertiliser. It was replanned. Other processes were brought in, it was expanded, and there were plans to expand it even more. I doubt whether any hon. Member understood the word "cyclohexane" before the disaster. Some of us understand it all too well now, and understand its propensities.
I have the greatest sympathy with local planning authorities faced with a situation in which technology advances so fast that when the plans come up for approval they cannot be aware of what they are approving. How can they know? This is a branch of technology in which very few people in the country may understand the full capacities of the chemicals we are manufacturing and what those concerned are seeking to do.
There have been too many fingers in the pie already. I welcome the Bill in general. It seeks to establish a Health and Safety Commission and a Health and Safety Executive. The clause is right to put the responsibility fairly and squarely on the commission, and the Minister should have powers to intervene and help out with the benefit of the expert knowledge that he has.
5.15 p.m.
Chemical plants throughout the country are remarkably similar—open pipe

work, nicely painted, many lights on. There is presumably the understanding that if there is a massive escape of gas it will disperse in the atmosphere and do no harm. We now know what happens if the gas is so volatile that in mixing with the air it creates a great explosive cloud and blows up, wrecking half the countryside, killing people, and leaving their families bereaved, as happened at Flixborough. Such was the paucity of thought about safety, health and welfare.
There may be a case for putting everything underground to contain it so that this sort of thing does not happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Consett said that at the Flixborough plant the control room was in the centre of the development and so was wrecked. Little thought was given to a matter as basic as that. All the records were destroyed. The local union secretary was the only one with records of who was at work. He was able to say who was on shift and who was not, and was invaluable in the first hours after the disaster.
There was danger from the very amount of chemicals stored close to each other. The cyclohexane blew up. The ammonia which was stored fortunately did not. Hon Members who speak of not thousands of tons of chemicals but many more in their constituencies are right to be disturbed. We need to examine the amounts of chemicals processed and stored. Instead of stockpiling them on the site, is it possible to bring in small amounts, carry out the process and then take them away rather than put them into tanks? Is it possible to separate the processes so that each is more self-contained and there is no possibility of flashback from one part of the plant to another causing ignition?
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for coming to Flixborough as soon as he could. My constituents and I are obliged to him. I hope that he will consider the clause with kindness and tolerance.
We have had a grave disaster at Flixborough. I hope that our whole emphasis will now change. The amendment goes some way towards doing something about a situation that is serious throughout the country. The disaster has happened at Flixborough. Men have been killed, their


children have been left fatherless, relatives have been bereaved, people have lost their homes.
If this terrible disaster has drawn the attention of the country to the potential dangers, we can say that if nothing else—and there is very little good that one can extract from the tragedy—we have alerted people, through the suffering of my constituents, to the potential hazards in our society. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and the House will learn, and will consider the amendment and other possible legislation, so that we can look forward to a better and brighter prospect for the safety of people and whole communities, and they will not have to suffer as my constituents did in the vicinity of Flixborough.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: I support the clause, like my neighbour across the river, the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis). The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins), in moving it included these words:
affect the people living in the area.
As I understand it, the effect of the clause would be that the commission could put conditions on the granting of planning permission and instruct the planning authorities to take certain action. I want to be assured by the Minister that such conditions would include the power to notify householders of the kind of processes that are within their vicinity and the dangers that they may present.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe was right to say that most people thought that the Flixborough plant was a fertiliser factory. The plant had existed for many years. Many people on my side of the Trent who were not employed within the plant were not aware of the existent dangers and of the process that was being pursued. A distressing feature is the article in the New Scientist of 6th June which states the present position:
Neither when they were first built, nor now that they are in operation, has any local or national government agency exercised effective control over their safety …".
That is, the safety of certain plants. The article goes on to point out that if it is proposed to build a nuclear power plant the electricity industry must provide detailed safety evaluation to the Nuclear Inspectorate before it receives a licence to build such a plant. This so-called fer

tiliser factory changed to a process which virtually amounted to boiling petrol. It was able to do so without notifying the local householders and those involved in the plant.
I must add to what the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe has said about the visit of the Minister, accompanied by his right hon. Friend, to the area concerned. However sympathetic, helpful, understanding and kind they may have been, we must be forced to the conclusion that the only protection that will be offered to the householders and those whose property has been damaged will come from the normal insurance market. Therefore, it is important that the clause should put a duty on manufacturers and planning authorities to advise householders so that they may ensure that their insurance companies know about any danger in the area and so that they obtain proper care.
The more we see of a disaster such as that which occurred in Flixborough the more convinced we must be that the help available from the Government is extremely limited. The help available to my constituents in Amcotts, whose houses have been devastated, is limited to the 75 per cent. grant that will be available when the Housing Bill is on the statute book, the 60 per cent. grant which can be given by the second tier local authority to improve their homes and the total loss payment under the Housing Act 1957. Further, the Minister may urge that the local authority gives those concerned a mortgage to buy a new home.
That is all the practical help that the Government can give. That was set out in a letter from the Minister for Housing and Construction to the Clerk of the Boothferry District Council of 16th June. The help that can be given to householders is very much in the category of "You pay to get your house repaired and when we see the receipted accounts we shall pay you back."
However sympathetic the Government may be, the constructive help comes from the insurance companies, which pay as soon as the damage has been assessed. I place on record just how constructive the insurance companies have been. I know that reports have been unearthed by certain newspapers and television commentators of dissatisfied clients of insurance companies, but that is not my


experience. In the village of Amcotts the insurance companies were on the spot. They have been as generous as any commercial enterprise could possibly be in the help that they have offered to my constituents. They have taken a thoroughly constructive approach.
One of the problems is that most people are under-insured at today's values. There is also the problem of those who have no insurance. The most practical way of helping people and avoiding the hardship and misery created by disasters is to ensure that we pass the clause. It would put a firm duty on the planning authority to ensure that everybody who has property or who tries to make his life in certain areas is fully aware of the risks involved.
It is significant that the only cash which has flowed into the households involved in the Flixborough disaster from any Government source is the grant from the EEC disaster fund which has been made to the relatives of those who lost their lives. Although we may be horrified about what has happened in North Lincolnshire, the House would do well to remember that the area has lost 500 well-paid and very good jobs. That is a disaster to everyone in the area. We must have these processes but we must ensure that the people living round about have the correct safeguards.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: I shall be brief for two excellent reasons. My first reason is that the clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) is so well drafted and is so obviously necessary that I am sure all hon. Members must be in agreement with it. Secondly, speeches have already been made to add to the excellence of his case. I refer particularly to the speech of my honourable neighbour, the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), who for so long has been fighting for the safety of his constituents and, incidentally, of my constituents. He has attacked both parties with commendable impartiality. I hope that he will continue to do so.
There have been other disasters besides the terrible event which happened in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough.

Mr. Ellis: Brigg and Scunthorpe.

Mr. Delargy: It is so difficult to remember constituency changes. I seem to remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) came from a seaport at one time which was made immortal in Treasure Island. However, he now represents somewhere else, and I am not so familiar with the geography.
It was a terrible disaster which occurred in Flixborough and it attracted the attention of the entire nation. Our hearts went out to all the people who died, to their relatives and to the people who suffered. We bear in mind the houses that were destroyed, the jobs that were lost and the fears which still remain. The fears of the people who live in disaster areas is an important matter.
There have been other disasters which have not attracted the same attention, which were not nationally known but which were terribly important to the people living in the areas concerned. Just a few years ago—the hon. Member for Essex, South-East will remember—a collision took place between tankers in the Thames. The hon. Gentleman will remember the explosion in East Street, Purfleet, some years ago, when the Government had to institute several inquiries. The people in the area were frightened that some other disaster would occur. Even more recently—in fact, just a few months ago—there was a terrible fire at one of the refineries at Shellhaven, which received very little publicity.
5.30 p.m.
There are just two questions I wish to put. First, how does it happen that everyone concerned except the Government realises the danger of concentrating these dangerous premises in a small area? We all seem to be aware of it except the Government, no matter from which party they come. We have never had an answer to this question, though we have been asking it for years.
Secondly, I would like to hear more about those promises given during the General Election by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister himself. Surely, by now, after three-and-a-half months, particularly


after the Flixborough disaster, we should be seeing some results of those promises. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will have something to say about the promises made about these terrible dangers facing so many people living in such neighbourhoods.
I hope the clause will be accepted. Among other things, it would greatly simplify the law. For example, when there was the explosion in East Street, we discovered that more than one Government Department and more than one local authority were concerned. The river board was concerned as well as others. The clause would confer great benefit on the nation and also—for which I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Consett—confer great benefit on my own constituents.

Mr. Walter Clegg: I congratulate the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) on new Clause 2. He has done the House a service in enabling us to discuss this matter. It follows the path laid down by a Government circular issued on 12th January, 1972 and dealing with the question of planning permissions involving the use or storage in bulk of hazardous material. It was clear from that document that the Chief Inspector of Factories knew of the dangers.
I want to quote from one of its paragraphs because it shows that the clause would be pursuing a process which was intended at one time. Paragraph 3 of the document stated:
The terms of reference of the Committee on Safety and Health at Work, under the chairmanship of Lord Robens, ask them to consider whether any further steps are required to safeguard members of the public from hazards, other than general environmental pollution, arising in connection with activities in industrial and commercial premises and construction sites. The report of the Committee will assist the Government in the formulation of long-term policies for dealing with these major hazards".
Meantime, it was said, the local authorities should carry out the provisions of the circular and consult the Chief Inspector of Factories about such problems. That circular was linked with a memorandum about major hazards, by the British Chemical Industry Safety Council of the Chemical Industries Association, which was quite clear. It began:
In recent years the size of chemical plants … has been increasing substantially and

this has meant in certain cases a new scale of risk to the public at large.
So the industry knows the problems, just as hon. Members do.
Will the Health and Safety Commission have sufficient technique to be able to evaluate plans put before it? If it is to do a useful job, it must employ people of at least equal calibre to the petrochemical or chemical engineers who have designed the plants. I want to be satisfied that the necessary technical staff will be available to it.

Mr. David Watkins: This is an extremely important point. I made it in my own speech. I envisage that the commission must have this sort of technical back-up. As I see it, it is the only body which could be in a position to have such technical back-up.

Mr. Clegg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It seems to me that the clause would make it necessary to have the commission's approval for the developments and plans submitted to it. But what concerns me is the freedom of the local authorities, after the commission has given permission for such developments, to give planning permission for other developments in the vicinity. If the new procedure is to be followed, it should be a condition that no further development will take place within the area which would make it hazardous to people's health. For example, if a certain factory is established and is made as safe as it can be, is the local authority to be able to say that it will allow a housing estate here, a shopping development there, or perhaps even a new factory elsewhere in the area?
I have in my constituency a chemical works at which, fortunately, there has been no such disaster as that at Flixborough. But one is worried about the effects of explosions. On the planning side, the local authorities should bear in mind the total consequences. This would mean that, once permission had been given by the commission, and it said that there should be no further development within a periphery of, say, 10 miles, the people with interest in the area would be consulted so that they might know that there was to be a freezing of development for some time. With these observations, I support New Clause 2.

Mr. James Dempsey: I want to draw attention to an element which has largely been forgotten in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) referred not only to safety—and one understands why the debate has concentrated mainly on safety, following the tragedy at Flixborough—but to smell, and smell does not seem to have featured very much in the discussion. Even if escaping gases do not cause an explosion, they can still be dangerous to the health of a local community.
Part of my constituency is much afflicted by an obnoxious smell coming from industrial waste. It is no exaggeration to say that even schools have to be closed early because of the awful effect of this pollution in the neighbourhood of Sikeside in Coatbridge. I could also illustrate, for example, cases of windows and doors having to be sealed and the interior of houses having to be fitted with air sprays to try to combat this awful smell suffered in that part of the country. There have even been infectious diseases notified which, it has been claimed, originated from the foul, obnoxious stench from the form of industrial waste of which I speak.
This is an indication of the serious health hazard that industrial waste and chemical elements cause if they get into sewers, or, indeed, into other parts of the neighbourhood. I wonder to what extent the new clause would refer this problem to the commission. What authority or powers would the clause impose on the commission to take effective action to control the situation? I hope that this will be dealt with in the reply to the debate.
I regard it as fortunate to have industrialists who co-operate. Thank goodness I have in my constituency one large-scale industrialist who is spending a small fortune trying to overcome the problems. If we are to encourage industrial development which can emit industrial waste, I consider, as a layman, that there should be powers by the commission to enforce the provision of pre-treatment plants for effluent at the sites of the industries before effluent is allowed to enter a public sewer. In my area the local authority is doing everything in its power and large industrialists are co-operating, but there

is still the problem of the small industry which thinks that it is not its duty to take effective steps to protect the community.
Of one thing I have no doubt—no men, women or children should be asked to suffer the unbearable smell of an industrial waste which gets into the air and floats over the community. In my area men returning from work have to leave their home with their wives and families and go to a local restaurant for a meal, for it is utterly impossible to consume meals in their homes because of the foulness and evilness of the stench pervading the area.
To what extent would the clause give effective powers to the commission and the local authority to ensure, for example, that in the development of industries which emit chemical waste the commission and the local authority can insist through either planning or some other control on the installation of pre-treatment plants to ensure that the effluent will be properly treated and the obnoxious smell removed before it goes into a public sewer? It would be helpful to have information on that. If the clause gives the commission and the local authority such powers I welcome it.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I must sympathise with the intentions of the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins), who has put forward the clause, and other hon. Members who have supported it. None of us who witnessed the appalling calamity at Flixborough can be unsympathetic, and we have also been concerned for some time about other potential dangers, in areas such as Canvey Island.
However, I am concerned about the way the clause is drafted. I hope that in the Government's reply we shall have certain assurances. The most important question relates to the expertise of the various official bodies which under the clause may receive information. The hon. Member for Consett rightly said that in Committee he pressed on many occasions that the expertise should be such that it could properly tackle problems such as those we have been discussing.
It is evident that today the average local planning authority does not have


the expertise to tackle the proposals for major industrial processes often submitted to it. The bigger the process and the bigger the international company involved the more expertise there is rolled out by big business. Many of us feel that the local authority cannot in such circumstances cope with the problem before it.
5.45 p.m.
There are particular difficulties in considering the clause. I wish to see how it relates to Amendment No. 25 tabled by the Under-Secretary, which deals with the problem of informing local people of certain changes in circumstances in a particular industrial process. We must be concerned that often the most dangerous or damaging changes in processes, or new processes, are such that we as laymen—indeed the average member of the public—can have no hope of considering them in their entirety, or fully appreciating them.
It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) that in some way the blacker the smoke the more dangerous it may be. But perhaps the fumes most dangerous to us are those which we cannot see. Where the potential dangers to safety and health are of that complexity, however much information may be given to local people, or indeed to the commission, there may not be an opportunity for local people surrounding the works where the process is taking place fully to appreciate the mine they are being asked to sit on. This relates to a point made by the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) about the Flixborough situation. People in that area had no conception of the process there, or of its potential danger.
Therefore, in relation to the connection between the clause and Amendment No. 25, which the Under-Secretary has brought forward in response to our pleas in Committee, I hope that the Minister can assure us that the clause will be effective. I understand that the Department of the Environment has for at least two years issued guidance on matters of this sort. In January 1972 the Department issued a circular of advice to local authorities. The question we must ask this evening is whether that advice has been followed and, if not, why not? Will the clause be a more effective vehicle for

achieving the objectives which all hon. Members share?

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: I support the clause. I shall comment briefly on the problem of Canvey Island raised by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) and say something about the Ford Motor Company, with regard to noise and pollution, which may be covered by the clause.
We must choose our words carefully when we are talking about a potentially explosive situation in Canvey Island. This may arouse all sorts of unnecessary fears, not only in the constituency of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East, but in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) and in my own constituency.
There is a lot of anxiety about the use of tankers so far up the River Thames into Long Reach. Although it is not the subject of this debate, there is, I believe, a case for resiting the discharging berths for tankers further down the river, and I feel that a seaport at Maplin has some bearing in this connection, although I do not seek to raise that point now.
I shall deal with two constituency matters relating to the Ford Motor Company. I have had a series of discussions with the company on complaints I have received about emissions of not only smells and pollution, which affect paintwork and metalwork, particularly of motor cars, but noise from the company's foundry at bottom of Asketh Road in my constituency.
I am assured by the Ford Motor Co. that it is spending about £3½ million in trying to eradicate the problem of noise pollution. There is a great deal of concern about this foundry in my constituency. Last week a meeting was held, attended by about 200 people, at which great anxiety was expressed to me and local councillors by residents. What penalties will the clause impose upon those responsible for the emission of dirt and noise? What penalties will there be for those who endanger the health and safety, not only of those in the plant, but the health and safety of those living near the plant? How does the Alkali Inspectorate fit into this arrangement?

Mr. Baxter: No one would disagree about the need for this clause. What


troubles me is that it seems to be implied that this terrible disaster at Flixborough arose as a result of a process taking place there which was not stipulated when planning permission was originally asked for and granted. It seemed to be a fertiliser factory. Then it moved to a new process. That appears to have been a departure from the original conditions and to have involved a change of use within the terms of the Town Planning Acts.
The local authority should be notified of such changes of use and its agreement to them sought. By setting up the commission we would not be altering the fact that a factory could be established anywhere in the country and a subsequent change of use could occur without proper notification taking place. I do not know the full story of this terrible tragedy. I have no doubt however that if the firm departed from the original planning permission this would have serious repercussions in terms of its public liability.

Mr. John Ellis: The point is that the new process brought with it a new complexity. I have heard it said that such a disaster could not happen, but it did. The local authority does not have the expert knowledge, irrespective of whether it knows about such a change, to make an assessment of the dangers. Extra guidance would be given by the requirement to submit plans to the Minister for examination.

Mr. Baxter: I cannot say whether there were people on the planning committee, or officers of that committee, who had sufficient knowledge and understanding of the technical processes involved. That is a matter for them. If such officials do not know what they are dealing with they have a statutory obligation to make themselves conversant with it.

Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Gentleman is asking questions which require answers. I believe it to be true to say that the fire authority has considerable powers to deal with petroleum products. It does not, however, possess such powers with regard to a whole range of commercial substances not covered by the Petroleum Acts. I believe that the fire service would welcome an extension of powers and an extension of knowledge

and understanding of these risks. There is a gap here.

Mr. Baxter: That is quite true. But this clause does not deal with that problem. It deals with the question of obtaining planning permission for a certain process. If the process is not divulged or if it is begun in a fairly acceptable way to which no one could take exception and then changes into something which presents great danger to workers and the community at large the commission would know nothing about it. It would be necessary for the Government to decide whether the time was opportune for a register to be compiled of the processes used in factories throughout the country. It could be that the terms of the original planning permission had been fundamentally altered. There could be great dangers to vast areas of the community.
I do not know the intimate details about this disaster. What I have heard disturbs me very much and shows that there is a need for something to be done. Even at this late stage I suggest that we should incorporate in the Bill some method whereby the commission would know what processes were being operated in our factories.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), are concerned that the economies of scale in Canvey Island have reached such a pitch that the community at large is at risk. What they have both recognised over the years, and fought against, is the fact that certain industries attract other industries, sometimes of equal risk, sometimes of greater risk. They seek to ensure that no further planning permission is granted without full knowledge of what is involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) spoke eloquently about the Flixborough disaster and its effects on his constituents. Although that was a major disaster, it would be as nothing compared with the same type of event at Canvey Island. It is the size of the problem which gives greatest cause for concern. We are concerned that in such a situation there would be a bigger reaction, a multiplication of instances, and a major disaster the like of which we have never seen before.
This means that every time planning permission is granted it must be examined closely. The difficulty and expense of reversing planning permission is great. Local planning authority officials would welcome the clause because at least they would be armed with more knowledge. That is a good thing. That is all my hon. Friend seeks to achieve, and that is why the clause should be welcomed.

6 p.m.

Mr. Harold Walker: The House has been debating some very grave matters. The debate has been marked by searching questions. It has posed many questions for me, some of which I doubt whether it would be wise for me to attempt to answer—for example questions concerning Flixborough. I must say nothing which will in any way prejudge or prejudice the outcome of the inquiries that are being established.
Questions have been asked on matters which are still subject to planning considerations. I must be circumspect about the response I give. There are some matters—about which I make no complaint—in respect of which hon. Members have sought to take advantage of an opportunity to air very strong and understandable grievances.
I proceed by giving my response to the new clause proposed by my hon. Friends and at the conclusion of my remarks I shall answer some of the questions raised. I am impressed by the skill displayed by my hon. Friend in drafting the new clause and the amount of work he has put into it. I am in agreement with the spirit of the new clause, and I appreciate the concern shown by my hon. Friends in moving it. I am wholeheartedly in sympathy with what they seek to achieve. The Bill, as at present drafted, will contribute towards their objective.
I shall speak about the present arrangements, which deal with the commission's end of the affair. Subsection (1) of the clause is an enabling power, enabling us to say that in the case of certain work places applications for new constructions should be referred to the commission. The Bill already contains a specific power under Schedule 3(4) which may be used to require specified operations to be carried out under licence. This means that the regulations may require those planning to set up new, potentially

hazardous plants to seek the consent of the commission—that is, they have to obtain a health and safety licence in addition to applying to the local authority for planning permission. If they do not receive a licence they cannot go ahead with the scheme, whether they have received planning permission or not.
Schedule 3(4) makes it clear that conditions may be attached to the issue of health and safety licences either in the regulations or as conditions built into an individual licence and worked out by a health and safety inspector at the design stage. That fully covers the substance of subsections (2) and (3) of the proposed new clause. Preliminary plans for making use of this licensing procedure are now well advanced.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Schedule 3(4) uses the words "of a specified authority". That authority is related to the commission.

Mr. Walker: It can either be the commission or a specialised body set up under the control of the commission. My hon. Friend's reading is that that will ultimately be subject to the control of the commission. I shall verify what I have said, correct it at a later point, or communicate with my hon. Friend in some other way, to confirm whether it is correct. If I am wrong I shall make a point of saying so in the House.
Turning to the local authority end of the matter, if the health and safety licence is not granted, the granting of planning permission will be of no avail to anyone subject to the regulations. As a matter of good practice local authorities should be fully informed about what processes are likely to be hazardous, and what conditions have been attached to safety licences, and so on, and should act accordingly in considering applications for planning permission and in considering their whole policy on residential and other development.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment said, during the course of his Flixborough statement, that much had already been done to ensure the fullest co-operation between local authorities and the health and safety inspectorates on potentially hazardous plants. A circular was issued to local authorities in 1972 describing what processes were likely to be hazardous, so


that they could take that into account in their planning decisions and seek expert advice from the Factory Inspectorate when in any doubt.
For some time past officials from my Department and from the Department of the Environment have been discussing how we can ensure that safety licensing procedures and planning consents are fully co-ordinated. The new commission will want to follow this up at the earliest opporunity, in consultation with local authorities.
I hope that what I have said will reassure my hon. Friends and other hon. Members, first, that there are enabling powers in the Bill, similar to those which they are proposing, designed to prohibit or to impose conditions upon the construction of new, potentially dangerous factories, and so on, and, secondly, that co-ordination with local authorities, to ensure that planning decisions reflect safety considerations, can be ensured if necessary by the issue of directives to local authorities under town and country planning legislation and to the commission under this Bill; thirdly, that these powers will be used and that much work is already being done with that intention in mind.
It may be that the outcome of the inquiries to which I have referred and which are being set up to look into what happened at Flixborough will suggest to us additional measures which we have not yet considered for protecting workpeople and the public. I am confident that the Bill, as drafted, will provide any powers now needed to implement any such recommendations of the inquiry without further amendment.
None of us can anticipate what may emerge from the inquiry. The House would wish that we should wait to see the outcome before contemplating further legislative changes.
I cannot comment on the remarks concerning Flixborough for fear of prejudicing the inquiry. It would be wise for us to wait for the outcome of the inquiry before we seek to make any further amendments to what we have already provided.
I urge the House not to overlook the fact that this Bill is basically an enabling Bill. We are empowering the Secretary

of State and the new commission to do certain things, in certain specified, designated situations. I mention that in the context not of my hon. Friend's clause but of some of the remarks made and some of the matters to which I have been asked to respond. I am assured that the response which I gave to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) was correct.
Dealing with one or two points raised, my hon. Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Williams) asked about the level of penalties. Clause 33 provides that where there are serious contraventions of the regulations—regulations such as we are discussing within the context of Schedule 3—or contraventions of the licensing conditions, when those contraventions are serious—and some of the things we have discussed this afternoon would be serious contraventions—the fine will be open-ended. The maximum fine of £300 provided in the Factories Act and the fine of £400 provided in the present Magistrates Courts Act would not apply, and the fine would be open-ended. I hope that that gives the hon. Member some assurance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) raised the question of smells. He suggested that smells could constitute a threat to health. Emissions which may constitute a threat to health come within the scope of the powers of the new commission, within the scope of the regulations that can be made, and within the scope of the provisions of the Bill. Where the smells are merely an offensive nuisance and not necessarily a threat to health, they would come within the scope of the Control of Pollution Bill, which had its Second Reading yesterday.
As for the expertise available to the commission, we recognise the enormous demands made upon available expert resources by new and rapidly advancing technology. However, without being complacent, I must say that I was enormously impressed by the expertise shown by the Factory Inspectorate specialists at Flixborough. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) reminded the House, I visited the tragic disaster site both on the Sunday, and on the following Friday, with my right hon. Friend. I saw the factory inspectors at work, as well as chemical, explosives and fire inspectors. The other emergency


services were looking to those inspectors for a lead and were submitting to their guidance because of the ability that they showed.
The commission will take within its scope not only the Factory Inspectorate but the inspectors who come under other Departments, like the alkali inspectors, the explosives inspectors and the nuclear installations inspectors, but it is envisaged that the commission will also establish specialist advisory committees to help with its work.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) has a constituency interest in what happened at Flixborough and has rightly shown, yet again, his concern about the villagers whose homes were affected. He asked for an assurance that in future people living in this kind of situation will be told of the risks. He will have gathered that Amendment No. 25, which I shall move later, meets precisely that point.
I understand and share the hon. Member's proper concern that compensation should be paid to those householders whose homes suffered from the nypro blast. The company said on the Sunday after the disaster that it fully accepted its responsibilities, was anxious to meet its commitments in full and would be establishing a committee to meet claims for damages. My right hon. Friend has expressed the view that Government or local authorities should be represented on the committee, as an additional voice to that of the company, in determining how the claims should be met.
Although the hon. Gentleman was right to remind the Government and other authorities of their responsibility, we should not overlook the responsibility of the companies themselves in these situations. Nor, in our anxiety to help the villagers, should we overlook the fact that our overriding concern must be for the relatives of those who died and those who were grievously injured by this tragedy.
The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), expressed powerfully and eloquently his deep concern about the difficult problem that he sees in his constituency. I would not seek to diminish the potential hazards, but since those additional matters are still subject to plan

ning considerations it would be inappropriate for me to comment. In any case, they are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Environment. Certainly, as the hon. Gentleman asked, I shall draw what he and my hon. Friend have said to the attention of not only the Secretary of State but the Prime Minister.
The hon. Member also asked whether anything in the Bill would help the people of Canvey. He is concerned about the establishment of additional refinery capacity as well as the problem of existing capacity. If the hon. Gentleman's fears are justified—I do not say that they are not—I hope that the commission will be able to deal with the existing situation under Schedule 3(4). Without poring through the Bill to see in what other ways it will help, I can say that at least Amendment No. 25 will help to ensure that the people of Canvey are adequately informed of the risks which may surround them.

6.15 p.m.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful for the Minister's thoughtful remarks, but I think that both the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) and I would be disappointed if he did not convey to his right hon. Friends the fact, which no one would deny, that the Thamesside communities are the most threatened by their environment of any in the Kingdom. That being so, it is ironic in the extreme that the House should be considering a Bill which seeks to bring under control hazards affecting the environment of ordinary people without considering the communities which everyone recognises are under the greatest hazard of all. I hope that even if he cannot say anything about that today the Minister will not fail to remind his right hon. Friends of the gravity of the position faced by our constituents.

Mr. Walker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall communicate not just the words of him and my hon. Friend but also the spirit of their speeches and the serious and grave tone of this important debate.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to ask leave to withdraw this laudable new clause.

Mr. David Watkins: With his usual courtesy, the Minister has given detailed


replies to the points raised. The gist of his speech was that in many important aspects the Commission will have the powers that we seek to give it. He also said that this is to a large degree an enabling Bill to take account of just such contingencies as the new clause would cover.
Nevertheless, this has been a valuable debate since it has allowed hon. Members like the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) to draw attention to valuable constituency experience and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) to recount his vivid experiences in relation to the disaster in his constituency.
I accept that the Minister has said that the commission will have powers under other parts of the Bill to cover most of the points that we have raised. Nevertheless, it is right that the commission, the Government and everyone concerned with these developments should have been made aware of the concern throughout the House.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

PRELIMINARY

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 9, leave out:
'and agricultural health and safety regulations.
I understand that with this we are to take a fairly long list of interrelated amendments, and I apologise in advance both for the length of the list and for the fairly lengthy speech that I propose to make in asking the House to agree to these amendments.
During the Second Reading debate there was considerable criticism from both sides of the House of the special provisions made for agriculture. These have the effect of excluding the Health and Safety Commission from anything to do with health and safety matters relating exclusively to agriculture. Under the Bill as at present drafted, the agriculture

Ministers would be solely responsible for making regulations concerned exclusively with agriculture, and they would be solely responsible for the enforcement of statutory provisions so far as they concern agricultural matters.
The criticisms of these special arrangements were repeated in Standing Committee, and the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) and my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) put down amendments to delete all the provisions which created or contributed to these special arrangements. They wanted agriculture to be treated under the legislation and under the new health and safety organisation on basically the same footing as all other industries.
The proposed amendments resulted in a very good and constructive discussion in Committee. I think that all members of the Committee recognised the administrative problems which arise because of the way in which the agriculture industry is organised—with many small units scattered over wide and often remote areas, frequently without employees, and involving special factors such as hazards to children. They recognised that these problems might call for exceptional solutions in terms of the organisation of enforcement, even if they did not agree with the provisions put forward in the Bill. As the right hon. Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Whitelaw) said in Committee, the arguments for and against those special provisions are finely balanced. Members of the Committee were anxious that I and my colleagues at the Ministry of Agriculture should consult further with the industry, and that we should look again at the whole matter. On the basis that I would do that, and that the matter would be discussed again on Report, the hon. Members kindly agreed to withdraw their amendments.
As a result of our careful reconsideration, their amendments now appear again on the Order Paper, but this time in my name—and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Consett has added his to it—with one important consequential which I shall mention later. I hope that the House will bear with me if I give a fairly full explanation of the thinking behind the changes that we are now proposing and of how we see future arrangements operating in respect of agriculture
Since we discussed the Bill's provisions in Committee, I have seen both the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers and the National Farmers' Union. Needless to say, the Secretary of State and I have also had extensive discussions with the Minister of Agriculture and his Parliamentary Secretary, who have also had talks with those interested organisations.
As a result of these talks, we have come to the conclusion that, while some special arrangements are indeed needed because of the scattered structure of the industry—and, in particular, arrangements which utilise the considerable expertise of the agriculture departments—these special arrangements need not, and should not, entail the exclusion of the commission from health and safety matters which are peculiar to agriculture.
As several members of the Committee argued most forcefully, we are setting up a new organisation specifically and solely concerned with health and safety as affected by the activities of all industry. Many agricultural activities, and the hazards they cause, are becoming more and more akin to those in industry generally. It therefore seems right in principle that this new health and safety organisation should be responsible for health and safety in agriculture in the same way as for other industries.
This view was put to us particularly strongly by the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, with the full support of the TUC. The National Farmers' Union would, I know, prefer the separate arrangements at present provided for in the Bill; but it made clear to me that its main concern is with the practical everyday situation; namely that health and safety matters should be dealt with by people with knowledge of, and the confidence of the industry. So long as our arrangements do not prejudice that, I believe that the National Farmers' Union will be content, and I hope that what I am proposing today will meet its main concerns, as well as those of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers and the TUC.
The Government recognise, as the Robens Committee itself recognised, that special machinery will be needed to operate an effective safety régime in agriculture, but on reflection we have concluded

that this operational problem need not—indeed, should not—condition where the ultimate responsibility should lie, and that where safety is concerned the balance of argument and advantage rests with arrangements which do not leave this most important industry to be treated as an "industry apart". The general effect of the amendments which we have tabled is, therefore, to bring safety in agriculture fully within the scope of the commission's responsibilities and those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. These proposals will, I am sure, be welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett and the hon. Member for Carlton, who, with others, so convincingly argued the case for this structural change in the Bill.
As I mentioned earlier, in putting down these amendments we have proposed one additional change not proposed by the hon. Members in Committee. We have included amendments which will enable the agriculture Ministers, where appropriate, to exercise the powers to make regulations. In practice, the system will work as follows: the commission will be responsible for shaping the policy for safety and health in agriculture. It will be assisted in this by an advisory committee which shall have members drawn from both sides of the fanning industry. After consultation with the agriculture departments and other farming interests—and the commission is, of course, statutorily required to consult all appropriate bodies—the commission will formulate proposals for regulations. In many instances this will be a matter of dovetailing the arrangements for agriculture with those for other industries, so as to arrive at "across the board" regulations which will be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. But where there are regulations applying exclusively to agriculture—for example, on matters such as children on farms, or the safe custody of bulls—these can be made jointly by the employment and agriculture Ministers within the new provisions that we are proposing in Clause 15(1) and elsewhere, which enable the agriculture Ministers to exercise these powers.
As regards enforcement, the commission will have the responsibility, under the Employment Secretary, for the adequate enforcement of all the statutory


provisions. Here I must remind the House that the Bill is designed to cater not only for the 65,000-or-so farms where hired workers are employed but—for the first time—for the nearly 180,000 family farms and the like where there are no employees. We have concluded that effective coverage of this substantial territory could best be achieved if staffs of the agriculture departments, who have been trained in safety and are regularly visiting farms for this and other purposes, undertake enforcement duties in the normal course. We are therefore proposing that for this purpose the commission, using the powers in Clause 13(1) would enter into an agency agreement with the agriculture departments concerning enforcement arrangements which would enable the latter's inspectorial resources to be deployed on the commission's behalf and to its specifications. I very much hope that these arrangements will meet both the wishes of the National Farmers Union, which is anxious that farmers should continue to deal with people whom they know and trust, and the concern of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers which wants to see the commission made responsible for ensuring the adequacy of enforcement in agriculture as in other industries.
But inspections and other forms of surveillance, however important, are not an end in themselves. They must be complemented by advisory work and by other measures to create an awareness of the need for safety precautions and to prevent accidents at source. Here, too, the agency agreement will enable the unique resources and machinery already available in the agriculture departments, reaching out, as they do, to be accessible to every farm in the land. The Agricultural Pesticides Scheme, based largely upon the Department's laboratories, is a case in point. This non-statutory scheme, which is concerned with food standards, user safeguards, wildlife protection and soil residues, is substantially outside the scope of the health and safety arrangements for which the commission will be responsible. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friends have already agreed that the commission, in any arrangements which it may make for the control of toxic substances used in industry, will be able to draw fully and freely upon the scien

tific experience available in the existing Pesticides Scheme Committee.
Thus, the sum effect of the Government's proposals is to ensure that the future strategy for health and safety in agriculture develops as an integral part of the national provision for industry generally, and to do this by placing the whole under the aegis of the commission. In the exercise of its overall responsibility the commission will have the benefit of advice from a specialist agricultural committee and the agency agreement which I have described will enable it to utilise inspectorial and other resources of the agriculture departments to best effect. On behalf of my right hon. Friends, I commend these arrangements to the House as desirable, sensible and workmanlike.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I feel almost like one of those people who in dreams are transposed from their present lives back into years past. It is a little over four years since I last made a speech in this House on agriculture, and slightly longer since I last spoke from the Opposition Dispatch Box.
At the outset I must declare my interest, because many hon. Members will have forgotten it. I farm, and I am a member of the National Farmers' Union.
As I find myself dealing with the interests of agriculture from the point of view of the Opposition, I have in the past 48 hours read with great interest the debates in Committee and on Second Reading and, much as I hate to begin on a contentious note, I must begin by criticising the fact that there is no representative of the Ministry of Agriculture sitting on the Treasury Bench. During the past three years, when I spent many hours sitting where the Government Whip is at present, this was not allowed to happen, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will express, through the Chief Whip, the Opposition's great displeasure that no Minister is present.
We all welcome any measure designed to improve health and safety on farms. I agree very much with the Under-Secretary of State for Employment that farming methods are becoming much more complicated as time goes by, and hence that the danger to health and safety is becoming greater.
A few weeks ago, at the beginning of May, I was much impressed to receive a letter from RoSPA concerning National Farm Safety Year and the society's plans for it. I was so impressed by it that at the time, little knowing that I should find myself with the responsibilities that I have today, I wrote to all the local newspapers in my constituency hoping that they would draw attention to the alarming figures of farm deaths and injuries. In this island, in the four years 1969–73, no fewer than 637 people were killed on farms, of whom 127 were children under 15, and no fewer than 36,453 were injured in that time.
We all welcome steps to improve safety, but the question which I ask myself—[Interruption.] I am very pleased to see that we now have an agriculture Minister with us. We welcome him to the debate.
I am not so far convinced by the Under-Secretary's argument that these amendments will improve safety. We look upon them solely from that point of view. To begin with, it is essential to refute any suggestion that in questioning these amendments we resist the putting back of agriculture into the Bill. Agriculture has always been in the Bill. This was fully explained and understood in Committee. No one should try to pretend that in questioning the amendments we are opposed to that. Our only reason for questioning them is to make sure that safety on farms is looked after in the best possible way.
There are a number of questions which emerge from what the Under-Secretary has told us. First, with regard to regulations and Amendment No. 57, we understand that the Minister of Agriculture has powers to make regulations both singly and jointly with the Secretary of State for Employment. But we understand from what the hon. Gentleman told us that that Minister will not really be allowed to make them alone. The hon. Gentleman said that the Secretary of State will take the initiative, that he will consult various bodies and that, after consulting the Minister of Agriculture, he will produce them jointly with that Minister. In other words, the initiative will be almost entirely with the Secretary of State for Employment, and I feel that there is no good reason for that.
In my view it would be best if the Minister of Agriculture were to produce these regulations alone. After all, his

Department is the most expert in these matters, as the hon. Gentleman implied when he talked about the expertise of the Department a few moments ago. I do not see why the Minister of Agriculture should not consult the Safety Commission and the Department of Employment, and why the whole process should not be done the other way round.
The Under-Secretary almost agreed with that in Committee. He said that
agriculture Ministers should also be responsible for making the regulations affecting farms since they are to be responsible for their enforcement. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 7th May 1974, c. 143.]
He said that then, but he has changed his mind drastically since.

Mr. Harold Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Ministers should go into Committee with closed minds and not be responsive to the arguments from both sides of the Committee?

Mr. Jopling: All I said was that the Minister had changed his mind and, with respect to him, he has not given very many good reasons for doing so. But I shall have more to say about that in a moment.
I find it disappointing to hear that the commission will be putting forward proposals for the regulations and that the Secretary of State will he the vehicle for bringing them forward.
Moving on to other matters, I must ask about inspection, which is dealt with in Clauses 19 and 20. It is essential that the people who go on to farms to deal with safety should be helpful and should understand farming. There could be no worse arrangement than for people to go on to farms to deal with safety who had no feel for or understanding of farming and no experience of dealing with farmers.
I welcome the news that in future the situation will continue where the Minister of Agriculture's field officers are the inspectors with regard to farm safety. They call on farms already with a variety of tasks and topics. I understand that safety takes about 30 per cent. of their time but that in general they have an understanding of and sympathy for what is happening on farms.
The question I must ask is: to whom are these field officers to be responsible? This is a crucial question, to which the


Under-Secretary did not apply himself in what he had to say to the House.
It is essential that we keep the hierarchical structure in the Ministry of Agriculture. There are 31 divisional safety officers, eight regional safety officers, and a certain headquarters staff in London. The Under-Secretary spoke of the agency arrangements which will be entered into, but where will the line be drawn between the field officers on the ground and the people to whom they are responsible? It would be nonsense to have the field officers responsible to two Departments—to the Ministry of Agriculture for 70 per cent. of their work and to the Department of Employment for 30 per cent. of it. I cannot believe that that would be an efficient arrangement. There must be a chain of supervision and communication, and in one Department alone.
I think that the Minister agreed with that point of view in Committee, because he said:
I think that the hon. Gentleman would be sensitive, with his own expert knowledge of industrial management, to the kind of problem that would arise when the field officers would then be working for two masters. They might be called upon to give priority to the work of both masters, with no one to say to which of their duties they should give most of their time, perhaps in an emergency, and so on."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 7th May 1974; c. 143.]
We must have a straight answer to the question: to whom will these field officers be responsible? We must know what the commission's specification will be for inspection.
I turn now to the enforcement aspect. It is not clear from what the Minister said who will be responsible for enforcing these regulations. It would be much the best thing if the Ministry of Agriculture brought any prosecutions that might be necessary. I do not believe that it will be necessary to drag in local authorities. If a prosecution has to be brought, it is better that the employer of the inspector should bring it. It would be more straightforward and satisfactory.
It is essential to maintain good relations between farmers and field officers. Relations are good at the moment. It would be unfortunate if at a prosecution, the field officer appeared as the agent of a body which did not employ him.
Clause 18(7)(a), as I read it, provides for arrangements to be made for the Ministry of Agriculture to be the enforcement body. Does the Under-Secretary agree that there is nothing in the Bill to debar the Ministry of Agriculture from being the enforcing authority? Will he, in reply, indicate clearly the rôle of the Ministry of Agriculture in the enforcement of these regulations?
I turn now to the general principles. Why has the Under-Secretary changed his mind so drastically since the Committee stage? In Committee, he said:
That is why I think that we have rightly provided in the Bill instead for the Minister of Agriculture to take responsibility for health and safety on farms, so that he can be responsible for the enforcement of health and safety requirements by his field officers and co-ordinate that aspect of their work with their other duties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 7th May 1974, c. 143.]
That was a very firm statement. The Under-Secretary has not told us why he has changed his mind in the intervening few weeks. In what way will safety be better looked after as a result of these amendments?
The hon. Gentleman said that the Minister of Agriculture was about to tighen up on farm safety. We understood that the Minister was to negotiate with the National Union of Farmworkers and the National Farmers' Union, to strengthen the inspectorate, to reorganise methods and to set up central and regional farm safety councils. Why could the Minister not wait until these new arrangements had time to work and to see how they worked? The fact is that he has done a monumental U-turn on this matter.
The hon. Gentleman has also weakened the standing of the Ministry of Agriculture. Undoubtedly, this is a slap in the face for the Ministry. By lowering the prestige of the Ministry of Agriculture, in turn we lower the morale of farmers. It may be difficult for some hon. Members to understand, but the weakening of the Ministry of Agriculture implies to farmers that the Government of the day have a decreasing interest in agriculture. This is no time to show that the Government are taking a decreasing interest in agriculture. Currently, we have the most serious situation in the industry that I can recall. My farming constituents today are more despondent than I have ever


known. Indeed, the statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in Luxembourg today has done nothing to help relieve the situation.
Why has the Under-Secretary changed his mind? Could it be—I do not put this in any belligerent way—that he has been leant on by the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers? Could it be that this decision is more about politics than farm safety?
The Under-Secretary said that he hoped the NFU would agree to what was proposed. If not, will he undertake to change his mind yet again? The hon. Gentleman talked about flexibility of mind and hoped that the NFU would agree with this proposal. If not, will he consider making more arrangements to suit the NFU?
How will safety be improved by this clouding and confusing of the administrative system that is proposed? We require an answer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider and answer the questions that I have put to him.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. David Watkins: I support the amendments, many of which are word for word identical with those tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) and me and debated on my motion. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I feel suitably flattered.
The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) made great play of an alleged sudden change of attitude by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. In Committee my hon. Friend indicated that he had already started to examine the whole subject and how our points might be met. He said that the tabling of the amendments had had a salutary effect upon him. I am glad that that has had the effect of speeding up his tabling of these amendments.
The points made by those of us who supported the amendments in Committee have been met as to about 80 per cent. by these amendments. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. I have shown my gratitude in a practical form by adding my name to those amendments which are identical to those that I proposed in Committee and which I feel have gone

so far towards meeting the points that we then sought to make.
The appreciation on my part is little compared with that of people working in agriculture for the fact that there is to be this new and determined approach to the problem in the industry.
First and foremost, agriculture is a highly dangerous industry with an extremely high accident rate. With construction and mining, it is in the top league of dangerous industries regarding the number of fatal and other accidents. It is a highly mechanised industry involving the use of a great deal of dangerous machinery. It uses more and more chemicals, with all the attendant dangers to those who have to handle them. It has no effective safety committees, no safety officers, and an abysmal record and level of enforcement.
This is the crux of what we are seeking to do. We are trying to rectify the situation. The nature of the industry indicates that something must be done. It is no use arguing in favour of the status quo, which has manifestly failed to come to terms with the high level of accidents in the industry. I do not think that there is any argument against giving the commission ultimate control over health and safety with the consultative arrangements embodied in the clauses to which my hon. Friend referred. I welcome the amendments.

Mr. Philip Holland: I feel sure that in the course of our many debates on industrial safety the Under-Secretary of State will have reached the conclusion that I am no particular respecter of Governments of any colour on this subject. Therefore, he will not have expected me to express my approval of the amendments by adding my name to them. Indeed, I have never in the whole of my political life demeaned myself by adding my name to amendments tabled by any Government, and I do not intend to start now.
I am sorry that I am at odds with my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). However, I assure the Under-Secretary that I am delighted that he has had the good sense to listen to the arguments advanced by his hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) and, to a less extent, by myself in Committee and on Second Reading,


when a number of other hon. Members pursued the same lines. I do not cavil at his change of heart. I welcome it. I fully support what he is trying to do in these amendments, recognising, as the hon. Member for Consett recognised, that they are in some cases word for word the amendments that we in our modest way proposed in Committee. I welcome the amendments. Should there be any dissension at the end of the debate, the Under-Secretary will find that I stand by my support for them and for him.

Mr. Hector Monro: First, I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) back to the Front Bench as a Conservative spokesman on agriculture along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). My hon. Friend put the case against the amendment very lucidly. That shows how fortunate we are in having on the Opposition side of the House Members such as my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart).
I start on a contentious note by saying how extremely disappointing it is to a Scotsman to find no representative of the Scottish Office on the Government Front Bench this afternoon. That is really intolerable. Not only do we begin the debate without a representative from the Ministry of Agriculture—although that representative is now present—but we are still without any Minister from the Scottish Office. The debate affects the Scottish Office, as I shall explain. I shall expect answers from the Scottish Office before the end of the debate.

Mr. Michael Latham: Does not my hon. Friend consider it even more extraordinary that there is no representative from the Scottish Office when there are amendments which are to be moved by "Mr. Secretary Ross" later this evening?

Mr. Monro: Perhaps the mysterious gentleman will arrive later to deal with his amendments, or perhaps someone else will move them on behalf of the Government. This is a serious point. We are used to having debates which affect Scotland at the Report stage of a United Kingdom Bill. Certainly when the Conservative Party was in Government it was

always the custom that a Minister from the Scottish Office was in attendance to answer points raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland spoke of the importance of the Bill and said that we welcomed it. However, I want to talk about the very narrow issue of the amendment about agriculture. As we know, the Bill started out with agriculture in a special position, with safety to be the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland and of the Minister of Agriculture in England. The Under-Secretary has made great play, in the debates on Second Reading and in Committee, about discussion. On Second Reading there was a fairly minimal discussion—it was hardly mentioned—and certainly not of sufficient importance to account for the somersault that he has now turned. I agree that in Committee the Minister seemed far from happy about it. He preferred the original draft to the Bill and was kicked into touch by saying that he would bring up this matter on Report—to give him time so that he was not defeated in Committee.
The weight of evidence that the Under-Secretary has put forward is minimal. Therefore, it must be what has transpired between the Committee stage and Report stage that has changed his view. The hon. Gentleman says that he has seen the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers and the National Farmers' Union in England. But has he met and had discussions with the Scottish National Farmers' Union? Has he had discussions with the Scottish Landowners Federation, which has been very interested in the Bill from the start? I should like answers to those questions before the end of the debate.
Farmers and those who employ agricultural workers are exceptionally keen on farm safety. This keenness is frequently prompted by farm safety committees, their organisers and practical demonstrations. They have a serious interest in the wellbeing and safety of farm workers. That is extremely important but it is not the vital issue of this debate. The vital issue is who is to be responsible for farm safety. Is it to be the commission, or the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of Agriculture, with their specialist inspectorates?
I realise that the Secretaries of State of various Departments, and those concerned with agriculture in England and Scotland, will make regulations to be carried out by the commission and will have obtained advice from the commission. But the important point for me is the loss of direct responsibility by the Secretary of State for Scotland, including his invaluable advisory service. It is the changes which the Under-Secretary has made by the amendment which have surprised us and which lie behind our requests for more information. The Under-Secretary may be right to change his mind or to approach the Committee with an open mind. But we should like to know what lies behind his change of mind between the Committee stage and the Report stage.
Up to now in Scotland we have had an established structure which has served us extremely well, whereas in England and Wales there have been separate inspectorates for wages and safety. We in Scotland have had a single inspectorate carrying out both jobs—administering the wages side and looking after the safety regulations. This has been most important in Scotland, where there may be very large distances between farms in the North-West and in the Highlands. One inspector, qualified in both wages and safety matters, could spend a period in one area and deal with both subjects with a minimal waste of manpower and time. This system may well have to be changed.
These men are experienced in both sides of the work and have a feel for and a knowledge of agriculture. That is most important. Agriculture is a little different from many of the other industries to which the Bill relates. These able inspectors should remain under the auspices of the Secretary of State and not be moved to a third party, however well meaning that party may be. Agriculture is a rapidly evolving industry. It needs specialist advisers and inspectors who really know their subjects. It is that sort of feel and understanding for an industry that makes it so incomprehensible when Ministers from other Departments of Government start talking about the abolition of tied houses. Anyone involved in dairying, stock-rearing or shepherding knows how vital it is to have tied houses attached to farms. That

is an indication of how remote are the present Government from agriculture today.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Agriculture Act 1970 included provisions to make it difficult for farmers to evict tenants of tied houses and that this provision was defeated not by the House of Commons but only by the House of Lords?

Mr. Monro: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will talk about his tied houses tomorrow on the introduction of a Ten-Minutes Rule Bill. But I doubt very much whether the Bill will have any success in this House or in another place. This lack of touch with agriculture on the part of the present Government is highlighted by the sort of Bill that the hon. Gentleman wishes to introduce tomorrow.
It is essential that before we conclude the debate on the amendment the Minister should be far more convincing in his explanation of his dramatic change of view between Second Reading and Committee stage and now. In the light of that we shall have to consider whether his arguments are sufficiently convincing for us to allow the amendment to be made.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I join my hon. Friends in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) on his appearance on the Front Bench. He demonstrated this evening what we have been missing in the course of the last four years by going absolutely to the root of the matter being discussed. Like him, I begin by declaring my interest in farming. I wish to speak only because of my concern for the way that we are to administer the health and safety provisions.
The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) argued that it was impossible to support the status quo in agriculture because of the high accident rate in the industry. I agree that there is immense scope for improvement, but the accident rate is not a reflection on the Ministry of Agriculture, a fact which seems to be accepted by the Under-Secretary because he plans to use the same people to administer the scheme at grass roots level. So there does not seem to be any criticism


of the individuals who will operate the new provisions.
I cannot help feeling that the fears which were originally expressed, and which have been echoed today, about the Bill as drafted stemmed from a superficial judgment of its contents and, more precisely, from a superficial belief that agriculture was not going to be subjected to the same strict regulations applying to other industries. The Under Secretary emphasised that agriculture is fully within the scope of the Bill, and we are therefore concerned only with how the provisions are to be administered in the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) referred to the slight difference between agriculture and any other industry. It seems to me that such is the structure of agriculture and agricultural employment, such is the nature and variety of the work, that the Ministry field officers, who are very experienced, are best suited to oversee the provisions and their superiors are best suited to supervise their work. I feel very strongly, therefore, that the Bill should be left unchanged.
It seems that in order to try to meet some of the objections to the Bill's provisions from outside bodies the Government are doing not much more than erecting a facade and are trying to produce a compromise which will amount to no more than a muddle when it is applied. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland referred to Clause 15 and to Amendment No. 57, which would give the Minister power to make regulations. Enforcement of those regulations will be in the hands of the executive. Is it sensible for the Ministry to make the regulations, for its officers to administer them and for them to be enforced by the executive? That is a recipe for muddle, and there is less likelihood of us achieving our objectives because of that.
Like my hon. Friend, I hope that the Under-Secretary, having had second thoughts, will now be prepared to have third thoughts and will leave the Bill as it it. As drawn, it is adequate to cope with the situation and will provide a basis for much more sensible application of the new law than would the proposals in the amendment.

Mr. David Weitzman: The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) spoke of a U-turn by Labour Members. It is clear, however that there has been a U-turn on his side of the House too. In the debate on Second Reading six hon. Members, three from his side and three from ours, condemned the separation and exclusion of agriculture. There is now apparently criticism of the amendment.

Mr. Jopling: Does the hon. and learned Member not recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) supported the Government on behalf of the Opposition in their original proposals, which is the form the Bill now takes?

Mr. Weitzman: Maybe. There was one speech in Committee from the Conservative side which opposed the amendment then under discussion.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister in having listened carefully to the support given to the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) and in having accepted them. I listened carefully to the criticism by the hon. Member for Westmorland, and his speech seemed completely illogical. If he thinks for one moment he will realise that the Bill is designed to provide for health and safety in industry as a whole. I see no reason for excluding any particular industry. If he maintains that an industry has special problems, the Commission can get into touch with the Ministry concerned, learn what those considerations are and deal with them. But the Bill unifies and deals with safety regulations throughout industry. Since agriculture is an important industry with particular problems of danger from machinery it is important that a commission established to deal with safety matters should be responsible for that industry. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on seeing the wisdom of what is put forward, and I commend the amendment.

Mr. Michael Latham: The House will not be surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) supported the amendment, as he supported most effectively the identical amendments moved in Committee by the


hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland). Similarly, the hon. and learned Gentleman will not be surprised that I oppose the amendment for exactly the same reason as I opposed those amendments in Committee. My speech there is on record, and I have no intention of repeating it.
It may be helpful to quote the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler), who said in Committee:
As I understand it, the intention of the Bill is to reduce the number of accidents. … Neither side of the Committee has succeeded in convincing me that by removing the agricultural industry from some provisions of the Bill the safety regulations will be improved and the accident rate reduced, nor vice versa, and that is what has worried me.
The hon. Gentleman was saying what several of us considered in Committee—that we should regard the matter entirely from the point of view of practicalities, of what happens in rural life, how to avoid accidents on farms, and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), in his effective and welcome speech from the Front Bench tonight, made that point excellently.
Now, there can be no doubt that the most effective and most carefully worked out speech against the amendments in Committee was made by the Minister. That makes it all the more surprising that he should make a speech in exactly the opposite sense tonight. I make no complaint about that. Ministers can and do change their minds. But some of the points the Minister made in Committee should be repeated so that when he replies to this debate he will be able to deal with the practical points which have been raised. The first question is that of staff. I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said in his important statement in moving the amendments. He talked about redeploying resources, and no doubt there will be some strengthening of the inspectorate. He said in Committee:
If we were to establish a health and safety inspectorate that was concerned solely with inspecting all farms, and with no other duties, we should certainly need considerably more inspectors than the 40, 45 or 50 full-time agricultural safety inspectors who are now in the Ministry of Agriculture. Furthermore, the field officers would have to continue visit

ing farms for the other purposes, and this would clearly be a waste of manpower and expertise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 7th May 1974; c. 136–43.]
I did not understand the hon. Gentleman to say that a new professional class of safety officers would be created for farms. Therefore, we would continue with the present system of field officers in the Ministry of Agriculture, except that the commission would have overall responsibility along the lines proposed in the amendments. Therefore, we return to the staffing question which the hon. Gentleman himself put so well in his speech. Does he intend to increase the resources available? If so, by how much will he increase them? If he does not, although the amendments are not necessarily objectionable in principle, the method of implementing them will not be possible for exactly the reasons the Minister outlined in Committee. If he intends to introduce more staff, where are they to be recruited from?
One thing is essential. Whoever are these people who are to increase the staff, they must be knowledgeable about agriculture. We do not want people with no practical expertise in agriculture coming on to farms. If they are available now and have not been recruited by the Ministry, I do not know where they are. Doubtless the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us.

Mr. Holland: Does my hon. Friend not agree that we do not want people going on to construction sites knowing nothing about the construction industry, and that we do not want people going into mines knowing nothing about mining? Farming is not the only industry with these problems.

Mr. Latham: I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend's intervention helps my argument rather than his. I know that my hon. Friend supports the amendment; he has made his position clear to the House and the Committee.
We must have practical people, and they are not readily available. Staffing the existing arrangements was difficult enough. If there are to be new arrangements, the Minister must tell us where the people will come from.
7.15 p.m.
I want to make it clear yet again that agriculture is not excluded from the Bill


as it stands. The Minister made that clear in Committee when he said:
The general duties under the Bill—those provided in Clauses 2 to 8, for example—apply to persons involved in agriculture just as much as anywhere else. The commission may put forward proposals for regulations to be made by the Secretary of State which will apply to agriculture just as much as to other industries where the matter to be regulated is common to all the several industries.
While these across-the-board regulations will normally be enforced in agriculture by the Ministry's field officers, they can none the less be enforced by the executive where special expertise is required. Thus, we are only providing in the Bill that where matters are specifically and solely confined to agriculture these will be the responsibility of agriculture Ministers under the special arrangements.
As the hon. Gentleman now proposes to change those administrative arrangements, with or without any increase in staff, he will have to explain how the transferring of those responsibilities to the commission will make any difference to safety in farms and overcome the administrative objections which he himself raised in Committee.
What has happened to the important statement the hon. Gentleman made in Committee when resisting the amendments? I make no complaint that he has changed his mind. Those of us who were in the Committee could see that he was under pressure from his own side. That happens from time to time. The hon. Gentleman clearly felt that he must make a concession, so he made the following important statement:
my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has been in touch with me and has now written of his intention to establish more effective arrangements for safety inspection and enforcement in agriculture. He is, I understand, within the next week or so, to meet representatives of the agricultural workers' union, who have been expressing their concern both privately to him and publicly about the provisions in the Bill which are the subject of these amendments. I know that he will discuss with them next week his proposals, which would include a strengthening of the inspectorate and the reorganisation of the way in which it carries out its safety duties. This would mean that more attention would be paid to farms where people are employed.
My right hon. Friend proposes also that he should establish central and regional farm safety councils, with representatives from the industry, from both the agricultural workers and the National Farmers' Union, with, if deemed appropriate, some representation from the Health and Safety Commission.
I am sure that the Government would like the opportunity to examine these proposals in

more detail, in the context of the debate we have had this morning, to see whether the new proposals to which I have briefly referred present a more effective way of securing health and safety on farms."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 7th May 1974; c. 143–145.]
As the Minister has tonight presented proposals diametrically opposite to those which he defended in Committee, I can only assume that, on reconsideration, he did not think that the new proposals put forward by the Minister of Agriculture presented
a more effective way of securing health and safety on farms",
in which case either he will tell us that he has abandoned those proposals or that the proposals in some way did not measure up to the assumptions which his right hon. Friend had made for them.
In this excellent debate we have over and over again drawn attention not to the impropriety of the Minister's changing his mind—on the contrary, it is desirable that Ministers should change their minds—but to the absence of satisfactory reasons why the changes have been made. I hope that the Minister will give some answers.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I come from a part of the country in which there are, I think, the strongest branches of the NUAW. I know how strongly the branches feel about farm safety. I do not blame them, because the accident rate is very high. Instead of having many manual workers on farms we now have enormous machines. I am not sure that the average townsman realises the immense cost of the machines which are now used. Neither do people realise the amount of dangerous pesticides and herbicides which we use and the danger that they can represent to the health and safety of those working on farms.
We have established in Norfolk a very good farm machinery club which not only teaches people how to handle agricultural machines but teaches many aspects of safety and does a great deal towards saving accidents. I fully understand the interest and concern of the NUAW about safety. It believes that the Bill would be strengthened by adopting certain amendments. If the alternatives will help cut the accident rate, I will support them. However, two masters for one man and two masters for the service that we have


in mind is not a good thing. I do not believe that the amendments would lead to duplication, to a worse service and to less people being taught about safety on farms.
I hope that whatever happens the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will take a firm approach and will not let responsibility for safety on farms be taken away from those who know a great deal about the problems involved and who have worked up a satisfactory relationship between those in the inspectorate and those on the farms.

Mr. Tyler: I am in some difficulty and I suspect that other hon. Members are also in difficulty. I found the Minister's speech extremely persuasive, but I refer to the speech that he made in Committee. Some of us approached the Committee with a comparatively open frame of mind. That may be unusual. Generally I had misgivings about both the proposal in the Bill as it stands and the amendments. It was with interest that I followed the Minister's reply in Committee. He put forward a persuasive argument. As my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) has already said, it was one of the shining examples of wit and erudition that he gave us in Committee. Sadly, he is a little rusty, the Committee stage having been completed some weeks ago. I did not find his argument on the Floor of the House as persuasive as I had hoped.
On seeing the amendments I expected the same degree of attention to detail as we enjoyed in Committee. The important point that is easily lost sight of—this is a point that I made in Comittee—is that we should be concerned not only with the administrative mechanics but with results. I do not detect in the Minister's speech the degree of attachment to achieving a better result for which I hoped.
It is extraordinary that we have had no reference to the views of the Agricultural Inspectorate. Now that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is present, perhaps we can be enlightened as to whether the inspectors have been consulted about the implications of the change that is now to befall the inspectorate.
One of the matters with which we were concerned in Committee was whether the Agricultural Inspectorate would find it easier to recruit more to its ranks if its responsibilities were wider under the agricultural hat or if it found itself more concerned with the rather negative side of its work concerned with safety and health, with a relationship back to the Safety and Health Commission.
I find myself bewildered. I was convinced by the Minister's eloquence in Committee, but I find that he is lacking in eloquence today. I prefer the Bill as it stands to that which the amendments would offer. Perhaps with a little encouragement from me to sparkle again in the fashion of his sparkle in Committee, the Minister may well come to the Dispatch Box and give us a more adequate case for the changes that he is now proposing. I think that he will agree that our discussions in Committee indicated that we felt that he had taken the right view. Therefore, it is difficult for those of us who are persuaded by logic and argument rather than by the efforts of our respective Whips to find a way out of the current conundrum. I hope that the Minister will be able to go into more detail and will be able to give us an assurance that the morale of the Agricultural Inspectorate will be improved rather than reduced by the proposals that he has now brought forward.

Mr. Harold Walker: The charming speech of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler) contained one contradiction. He said that we should be concerned not so much with administrative details but with the general effects on safety of any changes that we make, but he finished by asking me for more detail.
I now turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). The hon. Gentleman is a newcomer to our little club on health and safety. I tell him right away that his speech was very much out of tune with the tenor of our debates, both in the House and in Committee, over a long time. He admitted straight away that he speaks with a vested interest. He was frank about that, but the House should not overlook it. A number of his hon. Friends were equally candid. The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) shakes his head. I


do not include him, but the hon. Members for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), Dumfries (Mr. Monro) and Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) have readily acknowledged that they speak not objectively but, presumably, with prejudice as a result of the nature of their interests.
I found the speech of the hon. Member for Westmorland rancorous, negative and unconstructive. He has every right to criticise, but I would have thought that he would have been prepared to put forward new ideas rather than say that we should have stuck to things as they were. I refer to matters, which have been severely criticised by hon. Members from both sides of the House.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) reminded me that on Second Reading the majority of hon. Members expressed concern about the special arrangements for agriculture. From the Conservative benches the hon. Members for Bridgewater (Mr. King), Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) and Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel), who is now speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, made some challenging remarks about the exclusion of agriculture.
I can understand the feelings of a Minister who, having listened to criticism on Second Reading and in Committee, seeks to respond positively and who is attacked when he tells the House that he has changed his mind. Is it suggested that Ministers should go into Committee with closed minds, with rigid and inflexible attitudes? Is it suggested that they should not be prepared to respond to any arguments which are put forward? I believe that I have an obligation to listen to arguments and to respond to them if at all possible.
I shall now try to respond to one or two of the points that have been raised. I shall repeat what I said in my lengthy, comprehensive and detailed speech in Committee which set out the position fully. In doing so I shall reply to a number of questions at the same time. First, the commission will have enforcement responsibility. I hope that by repeating that statement I shall put the matter beyond doubt. Of course, the field officers will continue to work for the Ministry, but the Ministry will be

the agents of the commission in respect of safety and health and will carry out an agency function for the commission.
The same position will apply to Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland will carry out exactly the same procedure in respect of Scottish agriculture as the Minister of Agriculture does for England and Wales. One reason why we have had to make specific reference to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the regulation-making powers is that he is not a Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Dumfries will be familiar with the constitutional notion that a Secretary of State is any Secretary of State, and, therefore, references to "Secretary of State" include and cover the Secretary of State for Scotland.
7.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Dumfries, echoing the hon. Member for Westmorland, criticised the absence of a Minister of the Scottish Office. But the same criticism could be applied to almost every other Ministry. The Bill impinges on the interests of almost every other Government Department. If their criticism is valid, therefore, it calls for the presence of every Minister in change of a Department. I hope that the hon. Members would be fair and admit that such an obligation would rest on the Ministers' "shadows" as well.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and the hon. Member for Bodmin made a crucial point. Will the proposals we are making add to or diminish the provisions for health and safety at work in the agriculture industry? I do not claim to have any great familiarity with the industry, but the House would expect me to listen to those directly involved. Before embarking on these changes, we had discussions with the National Farmers' Union, the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers and the TUC. If I am urged—but perhaps that is too modest a word—or pressurised by those who are at risk, or by their representatives, to take a certain course, perhaps I am listening to the right voices, and it was the NUAAW and the TUC who stressed to us that proceeding as we are proposing to do would be beneficial rather than otherwise. I think also that we are proceeding broadly along the lines recommended by the Robens Committee.
The workers and their representatives said that the onus rested upon me to say why we thought that agriculture should be treated differently from any other industry. It is here that the main difficulty arises—trying to defend, when dealing with many industries, discrimination against one certain industry, or in favour of it, depending on one's point of view.
I have been enduring demands from my hon. Friends from the coalmining industry which have centred round the claim that the agricultural industry should receive exclusive treatment. They have been saying "If you can exclude the agriculture industry, why cannot you exclude coalmining?" I have not the slightest doubt that before today is over I shall have to argue yet again to my hon. Friends from coalmining areas in favour of coalmining being brought within the scope of the Bill. It is difficult to convince them and agricultural workers that coalmining and agriculture should not be treated differently from other industries.

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman has only half answered two questions I put to him. I should like to put them again in view of the particular interest shown outside the House. The first relates to enforcement. The hon. Gentleman said that the commission would have the responsibility for enforcement, but I think that he is partly wrong there, because Clause 18 states that it is to be the duty of the executive to make adequate arrangements for enforcement. I understand that under that clause it would be possible to make the Minister of Agriculture responsible for enforcement. Will that be done?
Secondly, what is to happen to the grades of safety officer above the field level—divisional safety officer and regional safety officer? Is that hierarchical structure to be continued? Are they to continue to be employed on an agency basis?

Mr. Walker: I will reply to the second question first. The difficulty here is that we are on the eve of the creation of the commission. I think that the detailed arrangements will have to be worked out in consultation with the commission. It is too early for me to give a positive and

clear-cut answer to the hon. Gentleman. As soon as the matter is clarified—and I understand the anxieties among those concerned to have a decision quickly—I will write to the hon. Gentleman. It is difficult to give an answer now, because we are in the process of creating the commission and we do not want to tie its hands too much.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of enforcement. The "executive" is the executive of the commission. Hence, when I talk of the commission, I tend to talk in terms of its superior rôle to the executive and the acceptance of the subordination of the executive to the commission in working on the commission's behalf. I am sure that it is the intention that the reference to the other authorities entering into arrangements with the executive should be precisely as the hon. Gentleman has stated, but obviously on paper it would provide for the Minister of Agriculture to act on behalf of the executive and, hence, the commission. But here again perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman with a clarification of the position. I hope that proceeding in that way will prove satisfactory to him.

Mr. Hamish Watt: Using the hon. Gentleman's own criteria, one would say that there is obviously no need even for a Minister of Agriculture in this country. Why does the hon. Gentleman seek to destroy the relationship with existing safety officers? After all, agriculture is different from all other industries. It works by different criteria, and we require someone who knows something about it. The safety officers know about safety in agriculture but may know nothing about safety in mines and quarries, and so on. The hon. Gentleman is obviously seeking to take a backward step.

Mr. Walker: I thought that I had made it clear to the House.

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) was not here.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) was not here and did not hear my speech, apparently. We are saying that, notwithstanding the transfer of the executive and regulation-making responsibility, the actual inspection of agricultural health and safety will in the future, as in the past, continue to be


done by field officers of the Ministry of Agriculture.
I hope that I have cleared up the point raised by the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) about the size of the inspectorate. Pending possible new arrangements under the establishment of the commission, if that be the case, the inspectorate will be based on the Ministry of Agriculture's field officers. It would continue to be at its present size, presumably, and it would be for the Ministry to determine the size of its own force in the field. Presumably, if the number of officers is adequate at present to inspect the premises in the industry it will continue to be sufficient in the future.

Mr. Michael Latham: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Minister of Agriculture can continue, under agency powers from the commission, with the same staff to do the same job, although we have had passionate appeals from the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) and others to the effect that the same job is not being adequately done? If we are to continue on the same basis and the staff is not to be increased, what is the point of these amendments?

Mr. Walker: I think the hon. Gentleman missed my qualification about "pending the creation of the commission." Clearly, it would be for the commission, when established, to review the adequacy of the arrangements. I am not saying that the commission should have powers to change the arrangements, but what we envisage, and what I am sure the House would hope to see, is that if the commission felt that the arrangements were inadequate in any area, and not within its power to alter, it would make recommendations to the appropriate Minister or Secretary of State.

Mr. David Watkins: In view of the intervention by the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) may I make clear that neither I nor any hon. Member on the Government side of the House has cast any aspersions whatever against the ability, integrity and keenness on the work of the staff. Their problem is one of inadequate enforcement power and we are seeking to give them adequate power.

Mr. Walker: I am pleased that my hon. Friend said that, as it saves me the trouble of doing so.
I hope I have replied as adequately as I am able to a number of points which have been raised. I return to points which should be stressed above all. A question which I believe foreshadows all else is the question whether the arrangements we are making and the changes we are proposing are in the best interests of the health and safety of the workers in the industry. I repeat that the best authority for making judgment on that is to be found in the elected representatives of the workers in the individual industries.

Mr. Tyler: I specifically asked earlier whether the agricultural inspectors had been consulted about the changes. It is not sufficient to have only the two unions involved; the inspectorate may have an important view on the matter.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that it would be inappropriate for me to consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and thereafter to seek to consult his servants who act on his behalf, as I am sure, knowing my right hon. Friend, that he is aware of and understands the views of his inspectors and officials, as I understand the views of those who serve me in my Department. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we have had the fullest consultations with those who have the responsibility.
Finally, I am entitled to repeat what I said in the course of my reply—that it is for those—this was how it was put to me—who would have agriculture treated separately, distinctly and differently to justify that position, instead of for us to justify what we are saying, namely, that agriculture should be treated as no more than and no less than any other industry.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 16, at end insert
'and designed to maintain or improve the standards of health, safety and welfare established by or under those enactments'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this amendment I think it would be convenient for the House to


take Amendments Nos. 4–10, 12–16, 21–24, 26, 27, 29–34, 88 and 89.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Walker: It will be preferable if I speak about the amendment which I have moved and then listen to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends in support of the amendments in their names. Perhaps, with permission, I could then reply to those arguments.
This amendment fulfils an undertaking that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and to other Members during discussion of the Bill in Committee. It picks up a point of fundamental importance that gave rise to a great deal of discussion in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley had proposed the addition of a new clause to the Bill which would have provided that where provisions of existing health and safety legislation imposed absolute duties, the Secretary of State would not be able to replace them by new regulations unless the new regulations were in the same terms as the previous provisions.
I resisted that new clause on the grounds that a provision in that form would create great practical difficulties. In particular it would provide endless scope for argument about the vires of new regulations, both on the part of opponents of progress seeking to delay the introduction of new regulations and on the part of lawyers defending their clients in court, who might be given opportunities for legalistic quibbling about the validity of a new regulation merely because it was cast in a different mould from an earlier regulation. I also said that it would cut right across one of the main purposes of this legislation—namely, the gradual and progressive replacement of the existing statutory health and safety requirements by revised, improved and updated regulations, with the aim of developing a more up to date and more effective body of law in this field.
My hon. Friend was concerned, quite rightly, that this process of revision and replacement should not result in any weakening of existing standards of statutory protection. I am quite sure that no one in the House would dissent from that proposition. I have assured the Committee, and I now assure the House, that the whole purpose of this new legislation is to

improve health and safety standards. On that aim all parties are united.
That is why we are setting up a new and powerful organisation, responsible solely for health and safety matters—an organisation which gives the trade unions an effective say in these matters. It is why we are giving it the duty of bringing forward proposals for new regulations, and giving its executive new powers to enforce them. The way in which this enabling Bill is framed is intended to facilitate and give impetus to the whole process of examining, updating and improving upon previous health and safety law; and to enable us to respond quickly and with more effective measures to the hazards posed by constant changes in industry and technology.
We have considered carefully what further safeguards we can introduce without impeding this essential process. In the light of the representations pressed strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Wilson) and others, we have come to the conclusion that it would be helpful to state this fundamental aim of the new legislation clearly in the first clause of the Bill, which deals with the Bill's general purposes. This amendment therefore imports into Clause 1 a statement of fundamental objective, that is, the new system of regulations and approved codes to be developed under the Bill's powers is to be designed to maintain or improve upon the standards of health, safety and welfare established under existing legislation.
This is not just a presentational embellishment. The amendment serves a real and important purpose, by establishing guidelines and placing constraints upon those who will be responsible for preparing and approving new provisions under the Bill. This is, I think, what my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley wanted. The amendment will give anyone who thinks that a proposed new regulation is less good than an existing one a clear ground for raising objections during the consultations that must precede the making of any new regulation. But it will avoid putting the whole process in a straitjacket, and attention will be focused not on technical questions of vires and suchlike but upon the real issue which concerns us all—the maintenance and


improvement of effective standards of protection.
I hope that the House will agree with me that this is a highly desirable amendment. I am grateful to those inside and outside this House who have pressed me into looking for a concrete way of stating in the Bill the objective we seek.

Mr. Cryer: Amendment No. 2 relates to regulations and codes of practice. Because the amendment includes the word "designed", which is an ambiguous word, it will be possible, with the best of intentions, for people so to construe it as to substitute a code of practice for some existing statute. Such a code might be designed to maintain the established standard of health and safety but to me that would be less than satisfactory.
The Under-Secretary said that the fact of the amendment would be the basis of an objection to any proposed regulations. As I said in Committee, there are many new regulations in draft and which have been in such a form for years because no agreement has been reached. To provide yet further points of objection to new regulations seems a fruitless task.
I was much obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me information about regulations concerning protection of the eye which have been in the process of production since 1969. They are still in that state almost five years later. In every year that has passed there has been an enormous amount of eye damage suffered. Yet, because the objections have not been resolved, the regulations have not been produced. Here is another clause which the Minister says will provide a further basis for objections. I would have thought that my hon. Friend could have accepted Amendment No. 4, which would have the effect of ensuring that existing statutory regulations were retained.
There is the position of this legislature to be taken into account. The Bill gives sweeping powers to the Secretary of State. Under Clause 15 the Secretary of State may repeal or modify any of the relevant statutory provisions. Those provisions are given in Schedule 1. They comprise 14 complete Acts and substantial sections of 13 other Acts. Many of those Acts are not trivial. They are major Acts and

include the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, the Factories Act 1961 and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963. Power to modify or repeal these Acts should not be handed over to the Secretary of State by this legislature without ensuring that such powers as are given to the Secretary of State are tightly con trolled.
Amendment No. 4 is designed to make sure that the absolute sections of these Acts are retained. I remind the House that the scrutiny by us of delegated legislation, although in many respects successful, does not extend to questioning the powers of the Minister. Our scrutiny asks only whether a Minister has abused the powers or whether he is making unusual use of powers which Parliament has handed to him.
If a Minister chooses to repeal the whole of an Act the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments is not able to quibble with that decision. If we hand over to the Secretary of State the powers set out here without modification or qualification, the question arises whether all the specific absolute provisions of existing legislation would be ultra vires by virtue of the existing general clauses contained at the beginning of the measures.
Consequently the word "designed" is certainly open to degrees of ambiguity which is most unsatisfactory. Amendment No. 4 is a written safeguard of legislation which has been built up, with a struggle over many years. I make it clear that there is no imputation, from me at any rate, that any Conservative successor would deliberately and by design seek to erode or completely remove these absolute powers. My case is that the erosion of these absolute powers can take place in a subtle way, gradually, over a period of time, so that, with the best of intentions and the best will in the world, people are lulled into accepting that for instance, a code of practice is preferable to absolute law. The whole of the Robens Committee took this point of view, one which by and large is not shared by the working people. They are the people who actually get their hands dirty, who produce the wealth of this country, often in cramped and unsavoury conditions, and they prefer absolute standards.
The Robens Committee, a body of well-intentioned people, decided that some sort of persuasion would be better. It is possible that with the best of intentions this attitude could overtake a future Secretary of State. Although we have absolute standards, it is worth reminding the House of the toll of death and distress which takes place annually in industry. In 1971 a total of 19·1 million days were lost through industrial injury. In 1972, a reasonably good year, the figure was 17½ million days. In 1971 a total of 920 people were killed. In 1972 the figure was 862. In 1973 the provisional roll call of deaths arising from industrial injury is 895.
These figures do not include deaths in agricultural work, which we are told by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) numbered 670 between 1969 and 1973. Injuries in agriculture in that period totalled 36,000. Every year there is something approaching 10 times the death roll of Aberfan and 30 times the death roll of Flixborough.
Why is it that it takes a Flixborough or an Aberfan for this sort of concern to be expressed? Why is it that we never see in the popular daily Press expressions of concern about the huge toll of death and injury which goes on day after day in our factories?
Amendments Nos. 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 21, 23 and 27 have been tabled because I and other of my hon. Friends feel it is important to have absolute standards of safety in factories. We have some absolute standards but not everywhere. So far the legislation has been a comparative failure, as the figures I have given show. Why should we not establish a new approach towards industry? Amendments Nos. 5 and 27 would impose absolute standards. The other amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), Amendment No. 8, is certainly worthy of consideration by the Minister with a view to its acceptance.
8.0 p.m.
Clause 2(1) would place a duty on every employer to ensure the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees. It will be pointed out that this imposes a criminal liability on employers. That argument was used by the then Attorney-General and by a

Minister in 1954 when the Mines and Quarries Bill was considered by the Standing Committee. The record is there. The arguments adduced there were that if the absolute standards which the Labour Members of Parliament were insisting on in that Committee were accepted, the National Coal Board would have to supervise personally every safety installation in every coal mine throughout the country; or, more frightening still, members of the National Coal Board would go to prison for every breach. That was the frightening prospect which was put before the members of the Standing Committee in 1954 in order that the words "so far as reasonably practicable" could be retained in the Bill. They said it was impossible not to include "so far as reasonably practicable". It was absolutely necessary for the conduct of the National Coal Board that those words should be included. After determined opposition, the words were excluded.
The National Coal Board members have not gone to prison—at least not for that sort of matter—and they do not supervise every safety installation in every mine. By and large the National Coal Board has been conducted with probity and with due regard for safety standards. Those words have been excluded.
I expect we shall hear lengthy arguments about the onerous liability which will be placed on employers if the words "so far as reasonably practicable" are excluded. We shall no doubt hear that the cost of ensuring these duties will be prohibitively high. There will be a cost involved. One does not deny that. But to set against the cost of ensuring high safety standards, surely there is the cost of the loss of production, on an average 17 to 20 million days a year, the payment of industrial injury benefits for every one of those days lost, the loss of almost 1,000 lives per year, the cost of hospital services, the cost of retraining after injury to put an injured person into a new job, and the grief, the pain, the misery of work people affected, and that of wives and children.
The removal of the term "so far as reasonably practicable" under the various amendments would incur a cost but not so great a cost as that which death incurs at the moment.
It is interesting that under Clause 7 of the Bill higher standards are imposed on employees than on employers. Clause 7 reads:
It shall be the duty of every employee while at work—

(a) to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work; and
(b) as regards any duty or requirement imposed on his employer or any other person by or under any of the relevant statutory provisions, to co-operate with him so far as is necessary to enable that duty or requirement to be performed or complied with".
The standard of an employee is higher because it does not say "so far as reasonably practicable"; it says "so far as is necessary", which is an entirely different attitude. I wonder why the standard as between the employer and the employee is differentiated. By using the phrase "reasonably practicable" this House will be saying that we are making a calculation of the cost of human lives.
In Edwards v. the National Coal Board 1949, when considering a case under the Coal Mines Act 1911 Lord Asquith said:
'Reasonably practicable' is a narrower term than `physically impossible' and seems to me to imply that a computation must be made by the owner in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in money, time, or trouble) is placed on the other, and that, if it be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them—the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice—the defendants discharged the onus on them.
The article on the case goes on:
In other words, the employers, when considering what is 'reasonably practicable' weigh up the price in cash and production terms of the precaution and balances it against the risk to life and limb of not taking that precaution.
The cost in human misery of not having absolute standards is extraordinarily high.
In Northern Ireland since 1968 more than 1,000 lives have been lost. Between 1968 and 1974, in six years, we have lost over 1,000 lives, the sort of number we lose every year in industry. There has been a call for the troops to be withdrawn. But we have said, generally speaking, in this House that we are not prepared to withdraw the troops, nor to cease to

spend money in Northern Ireland, because we think that human life is enormously precious; and if, by keeping the troops there, we can save lives we intend to continue spending that money. Nobody would quarrel with that attitude.
My argument, therefore, is: why should we not take this attitude towards work-people who are not killed in glamorous circumstances? There are no newspaper reporters or television cameras around the corner when a man is carried out after an industrial injury. It rates about two lines in the bottom left-hand corner of the local papar when a labourer is killed because scaffolding falls down. In Northern Ireland there is clamour. We lose as many lives per year as we have lost during the whole time of the troubles in Northern Ireland. Let us set our standards higher than in the past.

Mr. Arthur Latham: I accept my hon. Friend's argument about a price being placed on human life in the terms of his argument. Would he assist the House further? It is the case with the bad employer that he is likely to weigh the cost of making adequate provision against the cost of the penalty he would incur. The difficulty about the inclusion of the words "reasonably practicable" which my hon. Friend is contesting is that that makes possible a calculation in another place, the courts. One of the worrying points is whether the courts would be fixing a price on human life and whether they would calculate the balance between the cost of taking precautions against the loss that would be incurred on a less satisfactory scale if the employer had to make a straight calculation between the penalty he would incur and the cost of avoiding incurring that penalty.

Mr. Cryer: That is a good point. My hon. Friend says that if a fine is gauged at such a level an employer will say "That is my licence to incur a particular sort of risk." That is one of the unsatisfactory aspects of the Bill in that, on summary jurisdiction, the maximum fine imposed is only £400. What, hopefully, will happen is that when we come to a later amendment of mine the Factory Inspectorate and other local authorities which have the task of enforcing the legislation will have the right to employ solicitors, barristers and counsel to undertake


prosecutions which might pass the level of summary jurisdiction and go on indictment to the Crown court.
The present policy of persuasion by the Factory Inspectorate has resulted during 1971 in a maximum fine of £300 and in 1972 in a maximum fine of £341. My hon. Friend's point is very real. In 1971 920 people were killed, and 17,500,000 days lost. The maximum fine for that was a mere £300. The policy of persuasion and soft fines constitutes a very cheap licence to employers to carry on with their careless conditions. However, I hope that more prosecutions will go to indictment.
According to figures given to me by my hon. Friend, in 1971 10,000 eye injuries resulted in disablement for more than three days. In 1972 the figure was 9,100, and in 1973 9,900. Between 1st January 1968 and 6th June 1974 only 15 prosecutions were undertaken, when there must have been roughly 70,000 such injuries.
There are some good private firms, and generally excellent standards are maintained by the nationalised industries, but for many workers industry is a jungle. Employees who raise safety questions are regarded as Left-Wing agitators, Bolshies and troublemakers and are got rid of. This is true of thousands of firms, so there are great difficulties for employees. After an accident, protective equipment mysteriously appears, as though it had been there all the time and it was the employee's fault for not using it.
A solicitor has written to me expressing great concern about the Bill. He says:
I act for trade union members who have accidents at work. May I ask you to consider a point on the Health and Safety at Work Bill? Could the Government make it clear that absolute duties in forthcoming safety regulations will not be ultra vires in the light of the `reasonably practicable' provisions in Clause 2?
If my Amendment No. 4 is accepted, that problem will not arise.
Absolute duties do more for safety than qualified duties. They also make it easier to get compensation for the injured in civil cases. I fear that future regulations will be like the recent Abrasive Wheels Regulations"—
which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley on Second Reading.
The regulations substitute for the Factories Act 1971. They replace the absolute

duty to replace grindstones (Section 14) by a qualified duty. It is harder now to get compensation for men injured on such wheels. I suspect it is more difficult for factory inspectors to prosecute. If future regulations require occupiers to do no more than what is reasonably practicable there will be a step backwards for workers in industry. I have had some experience of conditions endured by constituents of yours in Keighley who work in the foundries there. In my view, they and the Factory Inspectorate need all the help they can get. Their employers should be kept in line by absolute duties, not qualified ones.
If a man with that experience feels that the phrase "so far as reasonably practicable" should be excluded, we should heed his advice.
The dreadful tragedy of Aberfan, which I am sure was talked about at great length in the House, was followed by the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969, which began simply with the words:
Every tip to which this Part of this Act applies shall be made and kept secure.
Why was it decided not to include the phrase "so far as reasonably practicable"? Was it because it would have looked harsh if a tip to which everything practicable had been done was allowed to slide across a school? Or was it because the House decided that any provision which prevented the loss of children's lives should not be tampered with, that the obligation should be absolute?
8.15 p.m.
I am puzzled why the standard in that Act cannot apply in the workplace or where there are no specific regulations and duties, as in the case of new processes—the amendment applies only to new planning applications and not to existing factories—and I am puzzled why the House appears to have two standards—one when a tragedy occurs and the other in the normal course of industry and the day-to-day life of the ordinary worker, who seems to count for very little. I ask the Under-Secretary to accept the amendment and establish a higher standard of industrial safety, so that employers will be under the threat of prosecution, which the statistics show is necessary.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew: We are all of one mind about the necessity to reduce the terrible toll of injury recorded year by year in our factories. There is nothing between me and


the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) save a difference of opinion as to the best practical means of achieving that reduction. Whenever there is a disaster like Aberfan or Flixborough there is a sudden concentration of the corporate mind of this House upon the problems that are highlighted. It is not surprising that legislation follows to deal with whatever seems to have been responsible for the disaster.
However, it is a mistake to assume that because it has seemed right in a particularly dangerous industry or situation to impose an absolute liability upon an employer, it is right to impose the same absolute duty across the whole spectrum of industry and employment. The reason I believe that to be a mistaken view is a complex one, but perhaps I may set out some of the factors that are applicable. First, we must pass a law that will produce the result we want. It is right in certain cases of obvious manifest danger to impose an absolute duty, because everybody, including the work-people who are affected by it and those who have to apply it, sees that there must be an absolute duty.
Where there is a less obvious danger, however—where the risk of injury is less in severity and less in probability—the ordinary working man does not see why there should be an absolute duty to guard against injury, however it may occur. If he does not see why the rules which he is required by his employers to apply should be enforced, he will not enforce them. That engenders a neglect for safety rules which spreads beyond the instant rules with which we are concerned and is liable to spread across the whole field of safety enforcement in that factory or shop. That is the danger of legislating for an absolute duty right across the board.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: The hon. and learned Gentleman has stood the argument on its head. No one on the Government benches is asking for an absolute duty in all cases. What we are arguing is that in existing cases of absolute power, and in cases in which that might be prescribed in future, it will be possible to enforce that under the legislation and the regulations, and that the right to lay down absolute

duties in specific circumstances should not be taken away.

Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman is not wholly right. He says that nobody on the Government side of the House is asking for an absolute duty in all cases, but that is the effect of Amendment No. 5.

Mr. Rose: No.

Mr. Mayhew: It is. That amendment seeks to remove from subsection (1) the words "so far as is reasonably practicable". Without those words the subsection would read:
It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.
The hon. Member for Keighley is seeking, in all his "so far as is reasonably practicable" amendments, to remove those words wherever they appear in the clause.

Mr. Rose: The hon. and learned Gentleman should look at Amendment No. 8.

Mr. Mayhew: That amendment proposes to leave out "practicable" and to insert "foreseeable", in line 28. I should like to deal with that amendment, but it is not in the name of the hon. Member for Keighley and I shall leave the matter there for the time being.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) has put his finger on the weakness of the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Keighley. The hon. Gentleman says that he is not asking for an absolute duty right across the board and, by implication, he says that such a request would be absurd. With that I wholly agree, and I shall return to that after dealing chronologically with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley.
Amendment No. 4 proposes to ensure that the Minister shall not be entitled to reduce any of the absolute duties which now apply under any of the relevant statutory provisions. I appreciate the anxiety that there may be about any relaxation—as it were, by a side wind—of the strict liabilities imposed by any of the statutes or regulations to be repealed by the Bill. I do not seek a relaxation of any of those duties. The Minister said that that is not the intention, and Opposition spokesmen made the point in Committee.
The wording of the amendment is not technically practicable, because it would impede the replacement of the enactments referred to in Schedule 1. The whole point and scheme of the Bill is set out in Clause I. which says that it is the intention bit by bit to replace the statutory provisions in Schedule 1 by new health and safety regulations made in a manner provided for by the Bill.
I accept what was said in the letter received by the hon. Member for Keighley from a trade union solicitor, that there may be uncertainty about the application of the ultra vires rule and that there may be an argument—I think that it would be wrong—for saying that by reason of the use of the words "so far as is reasonably practicable" in the clause any subsequent health and safety regulations which sought to impose an absolute liability would be ultra vires by reason of the rule that subordinate legislation cannot go further than the enabling Act permits it to do.
That could readily be overcome, it seems to me, by adding to Clause 15 words such as, "and such regulations may impose an absolute duty on employer or employee". Clause 15, it will be remembered, is the one which permits the making of regulations to ensure the general purposes of the Bill, but they are included in this clause. I mention that in the hope that the Minister will consider it in due course.
I am very anxious not to take too much time, but I want to deal with the case of these amendments taken together and it may be helpful to demonstrate by ordinary, practical situations the way in which the amendments which would remove the words
so far as is reasonably practicable
would produce nonsense in the law. Here I am renewing a contest which I had with the hon. Member for Keighley in Standing Committee when, it seems, I failed to make clear that we are all concerned to reduce the number of Acts but we seek to achieve the object by means of making new law. It is not enough for the law simply to declare the end which Parliament wills; it must also itself represent a means that is just and productive, otherwise we make unproductive law and, what is worse, unjust law.
The answer to the hon. Member for Keighley is that there is power under Clause 15 to make regulations for any

of the general purposes of the Bill. Those regulations may in a proper case impose an absolute liability. I have made the point, and I do not wish to repeat it—it will not become better by repetition—that there are cases where absolute duties are proper—for example, a provision of the Factories Act that there should be fences kept around dangerous parts of machinery so long as it is in use. We can all see that that is a necessary provision. Again, everybody can see that there are in mines and quarries dangerous situations which require the imposition of a statutory liability, as does the Mines and Quarries Act. It is highly unlikely that the Government will want to diminish any of those duties, but, much more important, I believe, is that a breach of any of the general duties which are included in Clause 2 are proposed to be breaches on the part of the employer, and this provision would itself set up a criminal offence.
It is not enough to say that we heard all about this from the Attorney-General of the time when the Bill of 1954 was discussed. The creation of a criminal offence is not a matter which can be taken lightly by this House, or increasing the penalties for a breach.
In Clause 40 we go clean against the spirit of our criminal law by placing the burden upon the accused person of proving himself innocent once the factual foundation for a breach has been established by the prosecution. I do not complain of that, but the courts of law have interpreted the provisions of the Factories Act—for example, they impose an obligation to show that something was reasonably practicable, not placing the burden of proof on the defendant to prove himself innocent.
An hon. Member said just now that it was not sought to set up a general duty right across the board, but Amendment No. 5, which affects Clause 2(1), has exactly the effect of making it a duty on every employer to ensure the health, safety and welfare of all his employees. Let us consider some practical examples. What about an employee with an unsuspected allergy to the process which he is called upon to operate, or to the material which he is required to handle?
8.30 p.m.
The employer would have no means of knowing that he had the allergy. Indeed,


the workman himself would not know. But, after three months in contact with the substance, he may come up with an injurious allergy. His safety will not have been endangered. Under the terms of the clause, if amended, there will have been a criminal breach on the part of the employer. No one can believe that that is just, and no one can believe that it will benefit the workman by one iota.

Mr. Cryer: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that in civil law there is a requirement under the implied terms of contract of any employment that an employer should use his best endeavours to ensure that materials are free from risk? Does he accept that in Pellicci v. Jeyes the claim was successful against Jeyes? In that case, an employee contracted dermatitis because his employers failed to understand the dangers of their materials.

Mr. Mayhew: That was imposing the ordinary standard of care and is the root of the doctrine of negligence in common law. It is not included in this measure. This measure, as sought to be amended by the hon. Member for Keighley, imposes an absolute liability. I should be happy if the hon. Gentleman said
… so far as is reasonably practicable",
but he objects to those words.

Mr. Rose: The hon. Gentleman appears to be suffering from a degree of myopia. He refers again and again to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) without referring to the other amendments which go with them. If he cares to look at those amendments he will see that the word "foreseeable" is inserted, instead of the word "practicable", and that the word "necessary" is substituted for "reasonably practicable". We are laying down a standard of care which is different from and above the very low standard of care which "reasonably practicable" imposes.

Mr. Mayhew: I look at Amendment No. 8, which is what I am invited to do. It proposes the deletion of "practicable" and the insertion of "foreseeable". By itself, that amendment merely substitutes "so far as reasonably foreseeable" for "so far as reasonably practicable". That is tautologous. It is tautologous to say

that it is an employer's duty to ensure that something is, so far as reasonably foreseeable, safe. The word "safe" has been interpreted in the courts as meaning that something is safe if it is not a reasonably foreseeable cause of injury when used by a person who may reasonably be expected to use it in circumstances which may reasonably be expected to occur. To say, in the light of that definition, that an employer's duty is to ensure that something is, so far as reasonably foreseeable, safe adds nothing to the word "safe" Therefore, one is left with the same result as that which would exist if the House accepted the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley which provide for the deletion of the words "so far as reasonably practicable ".
I have another example of what would occur if Amendment No. 5 were accepted. What about the tree which has given no grounds for suspecting its soundness but which crashes through the roof of a workshop? That is criminal guilt. There will not have been an insurance of the safety of the workman. Injury follows, and there is criminal guilt.
It is no answer to say that these examples may be far-fetched. I do not know that they are far-fetched. But even if they are, it is our duty, in revising and reforming industrial safety legislation, to make good law and not sloppy law, and to give clear guidance to enforcement officers, to litigants and to courts as to the intentions of Parliament. We must not leave it to factory inspectors or to judges to say, "They could not have meant that. We think they must have meant this." We have a great opportunity to make accurate, clear and unambiguous law. We must not waste it by pursuing very good intentions without clearly thinking out their consequences in law.
My next example is taken from the subsection dealing with the duty to provide plant which shall be safe "so far as is reasonably practicable". If we take out those words we are left with a duty to provide plant which is safe. A circular saw cannot be safe, according to the definition applied by the courts which I mentioned earlier. It is impossible to devise a circular saw which, without qualification, is safe but is still capable of being used. Sooner or later someone will get cut. Yet circular saws are necessary.


Many workmen would lose their jobs if the use of circular saws were forbidden. It is absurd to make their use a criminal offence. The sensible way is to say that a circular saw shall be provided which is safe "so far as is reasonably practicable". All we need to do is to adopt the rules in the woodworking regulations regarding the setting of the knife and so forth. By removing the words "so far as is reasonably practicable", and applying the subsection to the use of a circular saw, a criminal breach is created. That is nonsense.
Another example is of a pipeline which fractures and sprays oil under pressure over a metal catwalk at a height above the ground alongside a vast paper-making machine. If one of the crew on the paper-making machine walks along that catwalk, slips on the oil, and is injured, safety at work has not been ensured because the plant provided for him at that moment became unsafe.

Mr. Rose: Section 27 of the Factories Act.

Mr. Mayhew: I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to Section 28, where the words
so far as is reasonably practicable
appear, and rightly. Those words would be taken out of the clause if the amendment were accepted. It is ridiculous to suppose that it advances the safety of the workman in the practical example that I have given. To impose a duty to provide plant that is at all times safe is to make an employer criminally liable whenever the plant, for whatever reason, becomes unsafe. If an accident occurs, against which it is not reasonably practicable to guard, this can only be unrealistic and unjust. If the amendment is accepted we shall be imposing criminal liability against which it is not reasonably practicable to guard. It would be just as fair to make it a criminal offence to sneeze. There is nothing in such a provision to the workman's advantage, because such a provision is either ignored or, if it is applied, he loses his job. Compensation for injury has no effect, because the Bill provides that the present law on compensation for injury at work shall be wholly unaffected.
I turn now to Amendment No. 9, which relates to Clause 2(2)(b),
arrangements for ensuring … safety and absence of risks to health in connection with the use, handling, storage and transport of articles and substances".
By taking out the words "so far as is reasonably practicable", we make nonsense of the clause. I take, for example, the handling of heavy articles. Some still have to be handled personally, not by fork-lift trucks. For a fit man there is no problem. If he is properly instructed he does not get injured, provided the weights are not excessive. But what about someone who does not know that he has a weakness and whose employer cannot know of his weakness? He may have a latent rupture or defect in his back. He may be called upon to handle a heavy weight, which would be no problem to a fit man, but which injures him. Arrangements would not have been made for ensuring the safety and absence of risks to his health in handling that article. That would be the practical consequence of accepting the amendment. Suppose the man knows that he has a weakness and conceals it, as people often do when trying to get work. One sympathises with them wholeheartedly in such circumstances. It would not be right to impose a criminal liability upon the employer in those circumstances and it could not advantage the workman one iota if we did.
I turn now to Amendment No. 12 relating to Clause 2(2)(c) concerning the provision of such supervision as is necessary to ensure safety at work of employees. Again, the words "so far as is reasonably practicable" are sought to be taken out.
Let us take the example of a crane operator. An experienced and reliable overhead crane operator can, for all practical purposes, be trusted not to hoist away until the slinger has completely released his hold upon the chains. But he may do it. In a moment of aberration, he may hoist away while the slinger's hands are in the way. The result: injury to the fingers, if not worse. An employer can guard against that by having someone supervising every move of the crane operator, but that would be wholly impracticable. The crane operator would not stand for it, for one


reason, if for no other. That is the only way in which—to quote the words of the clause
the provision of such … supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees "—
an employer can guard against those circumstances, So again, it is not only non-productive but also unjust and unrealistic to make failure to provide supervision in those circumstances a criminal offence.
Clause 2(2)(d)—the last of the practical examples—concerns the maintenance of a place of work under an employer's control in a condition
that is safe and without risks to health.
The Bill provides that that should be subject to the qualification "so far as is reasonably practicable."

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I have been listening intently to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He has given the impression to the House that he is a cold, calculating human being, who is not interested in the causes of injuries to workmen. There are many instances in which a workman who is doing a job on behalf of his employer, and doing it religiously and well, probably takes a little risk in doing the job, and sustains an injury. For the hon. and learned Gentleman, if it can be proved that the workman was negligent, apparently the workman can be cast to one side without any common law claim for damages. Is that the hon. Gentleman's attitude to employees? If it is, this debate will have to continue for longer than we would have wished.

Mr. Mayhew: Of course that is not my attitude. I do not believe that anyone who heard what I said at the beginning of my speech would say that it was.

Mr. Wainwright: I have heard all the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech.

Mr. Mayhew: In that case, let me make it clear that what I am concerned about is that we take this opportunity of revising the law relating to industrial safety and do not waste this opportunity. The point that I have been making is that one does not advance the safety or interests of the workman by imposing a duty which is wholly unrealistic. One retards those interests by imposing such

a duty, because every employer relies upon his own workmen, in most cases, to ensure the application of safety regulations. If an employer's workmen say, "This is an absurd duty and we shall not apply it", one gets a neglect of safety regulations, which acts against rather than furthers the interests of the workman.
I am certainly not concerned to throw on one side the injured workman; I am concerned about reducing the number of cases of injured workmen. But I have been pointing out that justice applies to employers just as much as it applies to workmen. It is ridiculous and wrong to apply an absolute liability, to make the employer an insurer in all circumstances for the safety of his workmen, when an injury may arise without any culpability on the part of the employer. I hope that that point will be borne in mind.
I was about to give another practical example of the effect of Amendment No. 14, which seeks to amend Clause 2(2)(d), concerning the maintenance of a place of work under the employer's control
in a condition that is safe and without risks to health.
If one takes out the words "so far as is reasonably practicable" one is imposing an obligation to ensure safety in all circumstances—to insure against accidents however they may possibly arise. That, again, is something which is wrong. If one has the word "so far as is reasonably practicable" one imposes the necessary duty upon the employer to weigh up the risks of injury against the cost, in terms of time, money and trouble, of guarding against it. If the risk is insignificant in regard to the work that has to be done, there is no liability if an action occurs.
Take the case of an employer who has in his office, above his secretary's head, a picture. Through the mischievous act of a cleaner the picture hooks have been loosened and the picture suddenly falls on his secretary's head. He could not reasonably have been expected to know that the hooks had been loosened. Is he to be immediately liable for having failed to maintain his secretary's place of work in a safe condition? Hon. Members may laugh, but that is the ridiculous consequence of their own wording, and this is an important matter for industry.
By all means let us consider carefully how, by legislation, we may best ensure the safety of those who work in our factories, but do not let us seek to impose absolute duties when injustice would result. If we make an employer guilty of a criminal offence whenever plant provided by him becomes, for whatever reason, unsafe, we do him an injustice, we make the law ridiculous and we do no service to the worker. If the law rejects the criterion of practicability people in industry on both sides will reckon that it has also rejected realism, and that will be very bad for industrial safety.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Rose: The hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) has just taken us on a tour of the industrial fairground and at every stall he has put up an Aunt Sally and then proceeded to knock it down. It has not been an enlightening experience listening to him. He knows that the object of the amendments standing in the names of my hon. Friends and myself is not to impose an absolute duty in every case as he suggests but to preserve the absolute duty where it exists, to make it possible to have an absolute duty, or an absolute liability in certain specific cases, and to provide against dangers which are reasonably foreseeable. It was nonsense to suggest that any intelligent person would expect an employer to guard against those things which were not in any event foreseeable.
My hon. Friends are concerned about the words "reasonably practicable" because they allow for a defence which would permit a reduction on the part of employers' liability. Simply by taking the amendments out of context and by ignoring the linked amendments, the hon. Member has perverted the whole meaning of the group of amendments. If he seeks to take us through that sort of catalogue, putting up Aunt Sallies and knocking them down, we are forced to suspect his motive and to wonder what it is he fears employers might be required to do.
I say to the Government that the House and the trade union and Labour movements owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) because he has articulated with the utmost clarity, with a cogency which was quite remarkable and with

admirable thoroughness, the case against the insertion of the words "reasonably practicable", which provide a new defence in law which threatens existing safeguards. In spite of the protestations of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. who asked us to accept that this was not "presentational embellishment", I can find no more than what would appear to be camouflage for a situation which puts at risk the degree of protection now afforded to employees in factories, mines, quarries and elsewhere.
My hon. Friend used such words as "revision", "replacement", "up-to-date', "assured", "purpose is to improve". Those are nebulous expressions that do not deal with the real concern expressed not only in the 18 amendments I have tabled but in the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and others of my lion, Friends. Our concern is this and this alone: that there shall be no less duty of care on employers as a result of the Bill than exists now. It would be ironic if the passage of the Bill by a Labour Government were to reduce the protection afforded to employees under existing legislation and under the existing common law duty. It is our fear, so well expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, that that is precisely what will happen, without that intention, as a result of the wording of the Bill.
I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has every good intention in the matter, but he knows that what he says on the Floor of the House is not what matters when the Bill has to be interpreted in a court of law. It is the wording of the measure that matters. As I read the Bill, the words "reasonably practicable" give no more protection, and in some cases possibly less, than the existing common law safeguards—the duty to take all reasonable steps to avoid risk to employees. An employer has to provide reasonably safe tools, plant and machinery, a reasonably safe place of work and a reasonably safe system of work. Therefore, one adds very little and perhaps subtracts a little from the existing common law duty, but, in general, an employer is not liable unless he knew or some person for whom he is responsible knew or should have known of the danger.
All of us on this side of the House are aware of the concept of foreseeability that the hon. Gentleman sought to ignore. Under common law—this is one of the things we would seek to remedy—there is no obligation to provide the latest improvements in machinery, with the result that an employer can use the defence that it was not reasonably practicable to use the latest machinery. It would seem that this reinforces the let-out that already exists to some extent under the common law. As far as I can see, the words "reasonably practicable" do not increase the standard of care.
There was a great breakthrough in the law of this country in so far as it protected employees in the Mines and Quarries Acts, the Factories Acts and such things as the building regulations. Those who have had practical experience in the courts of dealing with the abrasive wheels regulations will know all too well how judges can drive a coach and horses through the wording of those regulations so as to take away protection which employees had thought they always had in relation to guards on abrasive wheels.
I am alarmed and shocked that the concept of absolute liability which is set out in various Acts and regulations may well be diluted, if not taken away, as a result of the way in which the Bill is now worded. The standard of absolute duty is apparently now reduced to a general duty similar to the existing common law duty, although perhaps a little different in specific cases. What is the difference? What does "reasonably practicable" mean? Does it mean that expense, time and trouble may weigh far more heavily than the life, limbs or health of employees? That seems to me to be the effect of using a defence of what is "reasonably practicable". My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, if he did not mention it specifically, nevertheless referred to a cogent argument by O. H. Parsons in "Labour Research", who said:
The risk is that in trying to be all-embracing, standards of those industries already covered can get lowered. In spreading the jam more widely it is liable to get spread more thinly.
My hon. Friend was expressing a fair point and expressing a fear that the hon. and learned Member for Royal

Tunbridge Wells sought to ignore either deliberately or by dint of the fact that he failed to follow the argument.
The amendments that have been tabled by my hon. Friends and myself try to meet a point that is not met by Amendment No. 2. It seems that the Government have succumbed to the tepid philosophy of Robens and a long-standing attempt by the Department of Employment to lower the standard of care in certain places and to reduce it by spreading the jam more widely and more thinly. More alarming is the view that I know is expressed by leading practitioners. I reiterate what was said by the solicitor quoted by my hon. Friend, which is the view that has been expressed to me by many of my learned colleagues inside and outside the House and by solicitors most experienced in litigation of this sort. There is the fear that absolute liability, far from being enshrined and hallowed within our law, will become ultra vires, and that it will be possible as a result of the wording of this measure to advance the defence that all that was reasonably practicable was done. It will become ultra vires to lay down standards of absolute liability in individual cases. It is that fear which the amendments that have been tabled by my hon. Friends and myself represent and to which I seek to give expression.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 6, which give expression to the fear that I have described, were ignored to all intents and purposes by the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 is that the standard of duty shall be laid down by Acts of Parliament and regulations thereunder. That provides no absolute liability across the board, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, but liability as laid down by Acts or regulations, for example, within the Factories Acts, the building regulations and the Mines and Quarries Act 1954. My hon. Friends and I seek to establish that nothing in this measure shall in any way reduce, alter or modify such statutory regulations as exist at the time of this measure coming into force or as shall from time to time be enacted. We seek to spell out specifically in the amendments the assurance that I understand the Minister sought to give—namely, that the absolute liability already laid down in various statutes will not be interfered with or diluted in any way.
We want to ensure that in future it will be equally possible to lay down standards of duty above "reasonably practicable". At the very least my amendment seeks to do that. It seeks to provide that action must be taken against a reasonably foreseeable danger. That was the point that the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells sought to ignore when dealing with my hon. Friends' amendments.
I return to the concept of what is reasonably practicable. That takes us back to the pre-1954 position. Already Lord Asquith in Edwards v. NCB 1949 has been quoted. It has been quoted because, as he said, it was a narrow term and implied a computation being made by the employer in which, on one side, was the quantum of risk and, on the other side, were the sacrifices involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk in money, time or trouble.
9.0 p.m.
We on this side of the House are not prepared to accept the concept that one can place value on a man's eye, or arm, or lungs in that way. We believe that where it is foreseeable that that kind of accident can occur there must be a duty higher than merely doing that which is "reasonably practicable" which really lets the employer entirely off the hook.
The employer may say "It would have cost too much to put up scaffolding when we were building this 20-storey building and, therefore, it was not reasonably practicable to do so." He might say "It might have slowed down the work too much in dealing with these castings if we had fenced the abrasive wheel." One can put up the same Aunt Sallies and knock them down.
This is the kind of defence which could be raised by an employer if we allowed these words to remain in the Bill. Again, an employer might say that something was not practicable because the equipment was not immediately available for safety precautions—that it would have involved perhaps bringing it from another part of the factory or another part of the country. We say that an employer ought to take such measures as are necessary to avoid foreseeable risk.

Mr. Peter Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman evidently speaks from some professional knowledge of these matters.

Does he not agree that in setting up such a defence—that it might have been necessary to bring equipment from another part of the factory—under the guise that it was not reasonably practicable, an employer would be blown out of court by any judge? Is not the hon. Gentleman misleading the House by suggesting that that would be regarded as a proper defence?

Mr. Rose: No. It is a defence which might well be raised and is often raised by lawyers. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me whether it would not be blown out of court. Judging by his intervention, he would be blown out of court on more than one occasion because he should know that this type of defence is frequently raised by employers in dealing with particulars of claim at common law as opposed to absolute duty. I speak not just from professional knowledge but from 10 years' experience in this House, something which the hon. Gentleman may well find out in time.
If the concept of "reasonably practicable" is adopted as the standard defence, in my view it will result in a reduction not only of criminal liability but of civil liability as well. In other words, one will be depriving the employees of the damages they would otherwise be entitled to were it not for the introduction of this new defence.
I myself have sought—and I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman might have given some thought to this—the introduction at various stages of the words "reasonably foreseeable", because in this sense the hon. Gentleman is right in that if we take out the words "reasonable practicable" without a substitution, we arrive inevitably at the unrealistic situation of absolute liability across the board. That is not the intention.
What is asked for is a standard of care, where one takes action against all those dangers which are reasonably foreseeable. Foreseeability is one of the aspects of negligence at common law at the moment. It is a duty in respect of foreseeable dangers, but it is perhaps not as high as some of us would like.
It is a higher standard of duty than that which is provided by the words "reasonably practicable". In two cases the wording is somewhat different. I refer to Amendments Nos. 31 and 34,


where the words "reasonably practicable" are to be left out and the word "necessary" is to be inserted. I understand that there may be a more favourable response to them from the Minister. I hope that will commend itself even to Conservative Members who have put forward the case against absolute duty.
With the best of intentions, the Government seem destined to sweep away standards for which the trade union and Labour movements and progressive lawyers have fought for over a period of years. Over this time they have gradually increased the burden of responsibility on employers. I want to see a watertight guarantee given by the Minister to the effect that there is no attempt or intention in the Bill to undermine existing statutory protection afforded by the Factories Acts and the other Acts and regulations in the schedule. I want a guarantee that it will be possible to lay down an absolute standard of liability.
If that guarantee can be given why not accept Amendments No. 4 and 6? That will not add anything to the guarantee. Why not spell it out? I can see no reason why the Government should seek to avoid accepting these amendments if the guarantee is given. If it is not, my hon. Friends and I would feel it necessary to divide the House. Apart from that, my hon. Friend has one other course of action. He can give an undertaking that he will look again at the wording and in another place insert suitable wording to provide for the protection of employees at a level no lower than that provided under existing legislation. This is perhaps as important as any matter facing the trade union and Labour movements. Perhaps it does not evoke the same emotions as the Industrial Relations Act but it ought to do so.

Mr. Weitzman: In Committee I resisted the deletion of the words "reasonably practicable." I pointed out the three obligations under the Factories Act in varying circumstances. I argued that—except in specific cases, as under the Mines and Quarries Act—where we dealt with a specific case and the obligation was specific, to make the imposition of an absolute obligation on all employers would be unwarranted and

would put an impossible burden on employers in certain cases.
Amendment No. 8 seeks to leave out the word "practicable" and insert the word "foreseeable". The subsection would then read:
the provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work that are, so far as is reasonably foreseeable, safe and without risks to health;".
Let me take an example. I install machinery. I reasonably foresee that it may be unsafe. It may be reasonably impracticable to take certain steps. Despite this, if this word is inserted I am under an absolute obligation in all such cases. This runs counter to the distinction made in the three obligations under the Factories Act and may often make work impossible.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) has read the report of what happened in Committee. I hope that he read the argument carefully. The Solicitor-General quoted the headnote in the case of Marshall v. Gotham and Co., in which it was held
that the company was not guilty of a breach of statutory duty because the death of the deceased was not caused by any failure by them to take reasonably practicable' steps to secure the roof. The test of what is 'reasonably practicable' is not simply what is practicable as a matter of engineering, but depends on a consideration, in the light of the whole circumstances at the time of the accident, whether the time, trouble and expense of the precautions suggested are or are not disproportionate to the risks involved.
Does the House wish to see an absolute obligation imposed in every case where the danger to safety is reasonably foreseeable—except in specific cases, as under the Mines and Quarries Act, where it is clear because of other factors that the obligation ought to be absolute—and to put aside such considerations as engineering, the circumstances at the time, and whether the time, trouble and expense of the precautions are disproportionate to the risks involved?
I hope that my hon. Friend will consider this matter realistically. If we insist on absolute obligation in all cases in which danger is reasonably foreseeable we shall impose an impossible criminal burden on the employer and in many cases make the operation of industry impossible.
The safety of the employee must be of paramount importance, but we must be practical. The phrase "reasonably practicable" includes the phrase "reasonably foreseeable". It is a factor which has to be considered. I should have liked to continue the argument propounded by the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew). I agreed with his argument. He put forward a number of specific examples showing the absurdity which the amendment would cause.

Mr. Rose: He did not.

Mr. Weitzman: The House should agree that in the circumstances set out the amendments should be resisted, and the words "reasonably practicable" should remain.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Max Madden: I support the amendments which seek to delete the phrase "so far as reasonably practicable". I want to mention relevant circumstances in my constituency. Thirty of my constituents have died from asbestosis and at the moment over 100 others are known to be suffering from the disease. All are former employees of a firm called Cape Insulation Ltd., which closed its works in Hebden Bridge in 1970. The circumstances of this death and suffering are disturbing and alarming and are cloaked in some secrecy and mystery. It may be of interest that the firm has paid out more than £500,000 in compensation to people suffering from this disease.
Against that background the House may find it equally disturbing to note that no cases of breaches of the 1931 asbestos regulations were ever brought against this concern by the Factory Inspectorate, yet there are a number of affidavits by former employees of this firm describing the most deplorable conditions existing at this plant over a number of years. Equally interesting is the fact that files of the Factory Inspectorate for relevant periods during the history of this firm have also become lost. The only evidence of concern about the conditions expressed by the inspectorate seemed to be one letter which expressed some concern about the situation at this firm.
A handful of cases of breaches under the 1931 regulations are brought to attention nationally. There have been only

33 cases brought under the 1969 Asbestos Regulations.
One of my constituents has been paid more than £10,000 by Cape Insulation. He is suffering from asbestosis. He has been before the pneumoconiosis panel on five occasions. Each time his case has been rejected. The panel has refused his claim for industrial disease benefit despite the fact that leading chest consultants have confirmed that he is suffering from this disease. Others of my constituents find themselves in similar circumstances.
I have written to the Under-Secretary asking for certain reforms of the pneumoconiosis panel. I urge that there should be an appeal as of right against the decisions of these panels. They should justify the decisions when they reject cases of this sort.
The tragic circumstances surrounding this situation in my constituency is mirrored in circumstances elsewhere which demonstrate either the inadequacy of existing regulations affecting the asbestos industry or the inability or unwillingness of the Factory Inspectorate, often at senior level, to enforce these regulations vigorously. I have demanded an official inquiry to investigate these circumstances. This would not only be in the public interest but would also highlight weaknesses in existing procedures.
It is no good arguing that the dangers of asbestos dust have become known only recently. That is an argument put forward not only by the firm in question and the industry but also by this Government and by the last Government when refusing an official inquiry into this set of circumstances. The dangers of asbestos dust have been known for a considerable period. They were first mentioned in 1906 by Dr. Montague Murray of the Charing Cross Hospital, who told a Home Office committee of deaths of people caused by working with asbestos dust. In 1910 the Chief Inspector of Factories mentioned the dangers of asbestos dust in his annual report. It was not until 1925 that this disease was separately distinguished from other pneumoconiosis diseases.
In 1928 Dr. Merryweather found signs of lung fibrosis in 95 out of 363 asbestos workers he examined. The first regulations were introduced in 1931. In 1965,


Surgeon Commander Harris decided, even though the 1931 regulations were being followed in the shipyard for which he was responsible, that the protection these gave workers working with asbestos on ships at that time was inadequate.
The dangers of asbestos dust have been known for a very long time. The regulations put forward in 1931 and 1969 have been found inadequate to deal with the dangers that exist.
In April 1972 the Sunday Times ran a very long feature article headlined "Dangerous Dust". This concerned a firm in London—Centrol Asbestos. There were deplorable conditions which have been of concern to London Members of Parliament and which have been known to the Factory Inspectorate. This was revealed in reports that were produced in the High Court action concerning one of the workers at this plant. That information was found despite attempts by the inspectorate to ensure that its report highlighting the conditions in that firm was treated with Crown privilege.
It is also revealing and relevant to the debate to look at one of the quotes given in the article from an inspector who is now retired, who told the Sunday Times:
How can you negotiate over absolute standards of health? Your job was to enforce the law, but it was hopeless. I got absolutely fed up just sending letters which got nowhere. It drove me demented—it was a filthy job at that factory and there were men in there with families who stuck at it in the face of everything, they weren't protected.
I believe that many workers in the asbestos industry are left totally unaware of the dangers involved, and it has been a scandal that the Factory Inspectorate has had no legal obligation to tell workers of matters of concern which it found on inspection.
I should like an assurance from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that the legislation which we are now considering will reverse that situation. I remind the House of qualifications written into the 1969 Asbestos Regulations which are relevant to our discussion. The regulations insist on equipment being
provided, maintained and used which produces an exhaust draught 
but again there was a written-in proviso saying

If it is impracticable to comply with these regulations
then workmen must wear an approved respirator and protective clothing, thereby overlooking the fact that men doing heavy manual work find it extremely uncomfortable to wear a respirator, and this was the case all too often.
The hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) has sought to persuade us that if the amendments were accepted every employer would find himself willy-nilly legally responsible for every mishap that occurs in his industry. I am not a lawyer, but I have always believed that the law is a matter of interpretation and that all the circumstances of any case are carefully weighed.
There should be a minimum qualification in health and safety matters. We need to concentrate the minds of employers on these important issues, which are matters of life and death. All too often these issues are put aside and ignored until some well-publicised tragedy persuades many people to clear their often dirty backyards.
I urge the House to support the amendments, which I believe will do much to reassure workers who for many years have been labouring in situations of extreme danger and hazard.

Mr. Harold Walker: It may be as well if I first say something about Amendments No. 4 and 6. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) asked me at least one specific question, and he is aware that I have written to him and to other hon. Members about the tragic situation in his constituency, where workers have died as a consequence of the appalling disease which arises from the manufacture and use of asbestos. The specific question he asked was whether the Bill either obliged or enabled the Factory Inspectorate to give more information in hazardous situations in future than it does at present. Yes, it certainly does. The Bill relieves the inspector of some of the legal obligations which at present restrict the amount of information he can give, and imposes a more positive obligation on him to provide information.
In addition, there are amendments which oblige not only the Factory Inspector but also the employer to provide much more information to work people about hazards in the factory which are a


threat to health and safety, and they also provide for the employer to give information to the public outside the factory who may be at risk.
Amendment No. 4 is similar to the provision which my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) tried to introduce as a new clause in Committee. I explained at that time why I could not and would not accept an amendment in this form, and I promised instead to introduce an amendment of my own to Clause 1 of the Bill which I thought would meet the spirit of what my hon. Friend had in mind—that is, to make quite clear that there will be no regression from existing standards for health and safety as a result of the Bill—and that I have done. I noted the scepticism, perhaps even cynicism, with which my amendment was greeted by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), but I am convinced that it will achieve that result.
In withdrawing his new clause in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley threatened to return to the fray if he was not satisfied with what we came up with on Report. That is what he has done, and it must now be for the House to judge between the two versions that have been presented.
The whole question of the preservation of standards was thoroughly discussed in Committee, and I shall try as briefly as I can to summarise the arguments. My hon. Friend is not prepared to accept verbal assurances, from Members of all persuasions, that regulations made under the Bill will in no way weaken the standards of protection of work people. My hon. Friend wants to enshrine his intention—and ours, too—in the Bill by curtailing the Secretary of State's regulation-making powers. I, too, want to enshrine in statute the intentions of the House by writing in a purpose for the new system of law that will be created under the Bill; namely, the purpose of maintaining or improving standards of health, safety and welfare.
I cannot accept the amendment, because it would not only enshrine the intention that is agreed upon by us but at the same time nullify and rigidify the whole legislative process. In seeking to preserve the standards of existing requirements, my hon. Friend's amendment would have the effect of making it an

extremely difficult and legally risky business to change the provisions containing them in any way. That is contrary to the spirit and purpose of the Bill, which aims to rationalise, up-date and improve upon existing legislation on health and safety.
I think that recent experience demonstrates the urgent need for a more flexible approach to statutory provision in this field. Existing legislation and legislating methods tend to be unresponsive to the speed of technological change. One thing that is highlighted by Flixborough is that the use of dangerous materials is increasing. The use of vinyl chloride monomers and such substances illustrates the need for a more rapidly-moving statutory process which is responsive to the changes taking place in industry.
I feel that I have done my utmost to meet the fears expressed by my hon. Friends, both by my amendment and by the assurances and explanations that I have repeatedly given. I do not think that I can prejudice the whole future of this enabling measure by accepting the amendment.

Mr. Arthur Latham: I acknowledge that I have not been in the Chamber all the time, but I listened carefully to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and I made a point of being here to hear what my hon. Friend would say about the difficulty of accepting the amendment.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend can assist us a little further. According to my reading of the amendment, it relates to the need not to limit or remove provisions which impose an absolute liability. It does not, as I understand it, have any effect other than to require that where there is at present an absolute liability that liability shall not be undermined.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Walker: I am following the point my hon. Friend is making. I am not carping at him in any way, but had he been here a little earlier he would have heard me on an earlier amendment point out that to go along this path would mean rigidifying the whole business by making it possible for anyone to challenge any change of any kind whatsoever in existing regulations or any of the existing relevant statutory provisions. That would


slow up the whole business of any possible change and would make it more difficult not only for lawyers but others to challenge a liability. It would nullify the whole trend of flexibility and speedy response that we need.
I turn to Amendment No. 5, with which we are taking all the amendments dealing with "reasonably practicable" and "reasonably foreseeable". I was rather tempted to talk of the inconsistencies between the amendments my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley proposed in Committee and those he has proposed today and the differences between those and those proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley. I do not say that in a carping spirit but because I think that those differences illustrate the difficulty of this question of duties and how they should be qualified and show that it is not an easy, cut and dried matter. Does the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) wish to intervene?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): It is helpful if hon. Members can be heard in reasonable silence.

Mr. Walker: It would be helpful to those of us who have been giving very careful attention to what are very grave matters if we were allowed to attempt to continue to grapple with these serious problems without being interrupted by people who have been absent throughout the whole of the debate so far.
I was saying that the amendments proposed by my hon. Friends reflect and illustrate the difficulties we have in approaching the question whether these duties should be qualified, and how qualified. I was making it clear that it is not an easy and cut and dried matter but demands an enormous amount of thought. We have given a lot of thought to it during the progress of the Bill; the whole subject has been exhaustively discussed during this time. As my hon. Friends know, we had a very good debate in Standing Committee, when we were very much assisted by the Solicitor-General in interpreting the effect of amendments of this kind about the duties, and about how they might be enforced. I had hoped that what was said then might have convinced my hon. Friend, but clearly it did not.
First, I deal with the question of using the phrase "reasonable foreseeability", as advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley, as a criterion for determining whether or not the duties should apply. I put it like that deliberately. Foreseeability, unlike practiability, does not depend on what has to be done to comply with a duty; it determines the circumstances in which the duty will apply. Thus, a person will have no duty to do anything to avert a risk that was not reasonably foreseeable. I think that that is fair enough. A duty should not apply in spite of unforeseeable circumstances. That hardly needs stating in legislation. Thus, there is no need to add a reference to foreseeability, but I am convinced that the deletion of "practicability" is undesirable and it is, I believe, unworkable. We have already tried to explain the reasons several times, but let me try to summarise them.
These general duties in the Bill are criminally enforceable obligations. They are also entirely comprehensive. They cover just about every aspect of the working environment and the carrying on of an undertaking.
If we delete the words "so far as reasonably practicable" in effect we are saying in our criminal law that in many cases work simply cannot be carried on. I need not expound upon the economic and employment consequences. But let us consider, for example, the Flixborough situation. On the basis of that illustration, there are intrinsic potential dangers in every major chemical manufacturing institution in the country. Do we stop the production of all these potentially explosive, flammable or toxic chemical plants, or do we do our best so far as is reasonable and practicable in all the circumstances to keep production going but to minimise the risks?
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) said that I had visited that tragic scene in his constituency immediately after the accident occurred. Later I met the work people and villagers, along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe. The fact was that the work-people of Nypro where the disaster occurred are desperately anxious that the plant should be rebuilt so that they can get back to work, in the full knowledge


of all the dangers which may still be there.
In much the same way, anyone in this House will be prepared to drive his car, despite the risks that he runs and knowing about those risks, although it is perfectly practicable for the use of cars to be banned if we believe that only that which is absolutely safe should be permitted.
It is not an acceptable legislative practice to impose absolute obligations of this very broad and wide-ranging nature which will cover everything from the Flixborough situation to the cleanliness of washbasins in cloakrooms. Law which is unrealistic law is bad because it is unacceptable. There is no point in imposing legal duties which are not accepted, not complied with and not enforced, because everyone, including enforcing agencies and the courts, know that they are unreasonable duties.

Mr. Arthur Latham: Is it not a fact that there is some existing legislation with regard to safety requirements which does not include the provision about reasonable practicability and that what has happened, therefore, is that in the course of time the courts have had to determine whether in their view in a specific case an employer complied with the statute as far as he was able? As a result, there has been built up a fair amount of case law dealing with this If that is the case, does it not mean that the inclusion of the phrase "reasonably practicable" in legislation encourages the employer right at the beginning to make his own judgment of the balance between cost of life and risk of consequence? Does not that, therefore, weaken the position of the safety of the employee? Does not the requirement, which would otherwise be, that the employer would have to justify this in a court represent a greater sanction and offer a better chance that the provisions will be applied to the maximum possible extent?

Mr. Walker: I am not sure that I have followed that. If, for example, Amendment No. 5 were adopted, it would cut out of the terms of the general duties provided in Clause 2 the words "so far as reasonably practicable". That would leave a provision that it shall be the duty of every employer to ensure the health,

safety and welfare at work of all his employees. Then, if the hypothetical problem to which I have referred emerged of, let us say, recognising that a coal mine can never be absolutely safe, that there may be chemical plants which can never be absolutely safe, or that there are steel works which can never be absolutely safe, it would be a matter for judges in our courts to determine, using their discretion and having listened to the arguments of lawyers, what was reasonable and practicable in those circumstances.
It seems to me that my hon. Friend is only confirming my point. He is advocating putting on the shoulders of judges and lawyers responsibilities which properly belong to us. Once we do that in respect of one absolute obligation, it is inescapable that we allow the same discretion to the courts in respect of every absolute obligation.
If my hon. Friend is suggesting that a situation may arise in which it should be open to the court to use its discretion and judgment regarding the general duties, I suggest that we might as well forget about any absolute obligations. When the House has insisted that it is right that there should be general duties, how can we suggest that they are right for one part of our legislation and wrong for another? For example, Section 14 of the Factories Act lays down absolute obligations regarding the fencing of machinery. That is an absolute obligation that we intend should continue. It is right that, where appropriate, the statute should have varying qualifications such as those referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman). I recognise the fear expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley. I do not wish to deceive him or the House. I am sure that I shall not deceive him. I do not want to "con" anybody.
My hon. Friend said that the situation that I described is the one about which in principle we are agreed and want to retain, except that the absolute duties contained in, for example, the Mines and Quarries Act and Section 14 of the Factories Act have been laid down in the principal statute in consequence of deliberations in this House. In future the commission will make recommendations


to the Secretary of State regarding regulations. The Secretary of State will then take over what has hitherto been the function of this House, and it will then be left to the House to adopt the negative resolution procedure.
My hon. Friend said that that procedure, even though it may not lead to any regression from the standards laid down, none the less is a regression from the safeguards that we have built into the parliamentary machine. I recognise that that is so. But we must choose between a repetition of our inability to legislate adequately to safeguard against certain situations, because we in this place represent a slow-moving, deliberative and deliberating assembly, and recognising the pace of modern technology, the new dangers which are emerging almost overnight in some cases, and the need to deal with them by some form of statutory machine which can respond quickly with the expertise which we often do not possess.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that the whole principle of subordinate legislation is to give the speed about which he is concerned? Does he accept that the existing relevant enactments—for example, the Factories Act 1961—provide the ability to make regulations? Does he accept that my fear is not about the speed of regulationmaking—the protection of eyes regulations have been five years in the making without any results so far—but about existing standards being eroded away? I am not concerned about the speed with which regulations are made.

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend knows that Section 14 of the Factories Act, apart from what may be in regulations arising from the enabling powers and other parts of the Act, lays down absolute standards. Part of his anxiety is that the commission may in due course decide to introduce regulations which will replace Section 14 and that those regulations may contain a lower standard which may be qualified. In case any hon. Members misunderstand me—I am sure that my hon. Friend does not—I should point out that qualification in the general duties does not automatically qualify any existing absolute duties and does not impose any obligation regarding new regulations. It is difficult to envisage the

likelihood of existing absolute standards in the Factories Act, the Mines and Quarries Act, or any other legislation being qualified in future even if they are taken out to be modified in the form of regulations.
9.45 p.m.
I beg my hon. Friends to understand that the commission which we are creating, which will be empowered to formulate the regulations which will subsequently be exposed to the negative procedure of the House, will be very heavily made up of people who reflect the same kind of anxieties that have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and the concern of all of us about health and safety for people at work.
We have ensured that the regulations made under Clause 15 may impose absolute standards, and that may well mean that matters which are qualified by the words "reasonably practicable" now could well be made absolute in the future. The Bill makes absolutely plain that all the Acts listed in Schedule 1 will continue in force until replaced by such regulations. Therefore, there is nothing to be gained by the deletion of the qualifications in the general duties in the Bill. I have made it clear, I think, to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and to the House that I cannot accept his amendments.
I now turn—[Interruption] My hon. Friends will feel that Conservative hon. Members, in circumstances such as these, do not help me by seeking to act on my behalf. I turn to two other amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley—Amendments Nos. 31 and 34. I ought to tell the House how I see the amendments affecting the passage of the Bill. These words will bring a duty on those who design, manufacture, supply or import any article or substance for use at work to make available adequate information about their properties and safe use. That is much in line, for instance, with the duty placed upon employers to provide necessary information to their employees, which I propose to insert in Clause 2, and with the duty on inspectors to provide information to work people, which I have proposed that we should insert in Clause 28 by amendment later. Again, this is a necessary duty.
In this particular case, where the duty refers to a specific matter which is, however, not a matter of safeguarding health or safety where practical physical difficulties may be involved, it seems quite proper to impose a duty that is qualified by reference to what is necessary rather than by reference to what is reasonably practicable. I am, therefore, grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing this matter to my attention. I am pleased to find these two amendments wholly acceptable and I commend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 16, at end insert:
'(3) For the purposes of this Part risks arising out of or in connection with the activities of persons at work shall be treated as including risks attributable to the manner of conducting an undertaking, the plant or substances used for the purposes of an undertaking and the condition of premises so used or any part of them'.
This amendment is intended purely for clarification of the rather important expression
risks arising out of or in connection with the activities of persons at work",
as used in subsection 1(b). We feel that it might not be immediately obvious that the general purposes as defined in this subsection extend to the protection of persons from risks attributable to the

plant, substances, premises and so on used in connection with the carrying on of an undertaking, as well as from those attributable to the actual carrying on of the work activity.

By spelling out in this new subsection (3) some less apparent aspects of what is meant by risks associated with work activities, we are ensuring that there can be no doubt that we can, for example, deal with risks arising when children are allowed to ride on farm tractors; or with the continuing dangers that may persist after the cessation of a work operation, for example in the case of a nuclear site that has been closed down, and so on. These are all hazards that arise from the operations of industry, and clearly they should be covered. This amendment is designed to ensure that there is no doubt that they are covered.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 4, in page 2, line 16 at end insert—
'(3) Nothing in this Act shall permit the Secretary of State to remove, or limit the application of any of the provisions imposing absolute liability contained in any of the relevant statutory provisions or any regulations, orders or other instruments made thereunder'.—[Mr. Cryer.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 37, Noes 222.

Division No. 43]
AYES
[9.54 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Kelley, Richard
Sedgemore, Bryan


Ashton, Joe
Kerr, Russell
Sillars, James


Atkinson, Norman
Lambie, David
Skinner, Dennis


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Latham, Arthur (CityofW'minsterP'ton)
Swain, Thomas


Bidwell, Sydney
McNamara, Kevin
Tomlinson, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Marks, Kenneth
Torney, Tom


Clemitson, Ivor
Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Cook, R. F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Richardson, Miss Jo



Edge, Geoff
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Roderick, Caerwyn E.
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Mr. Max Madden.


Huckfield, Leslie
Rose, Paul B.





NOES


Abse, Leo
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Butler, Mrs.Joyce (H'gey, WoodGreen)


Archer, Peter (Warley, West)
Booth, Albert
Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wich)


Armstrong, Ernest
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Campbell, Ian


Ashley, Jack
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Cant, R. B.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Carter, Ray


Bagier, Gordon, A. T.
Bradley, Tom
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Brown, Bob (Newcastleupon Tyne, W.)
Cocks, Michael


Bates, Alf
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Coleman, Donald


Baxter, William
Buchan, Norman
Concannon, J. D.


Bishop, E. S.
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springbrn)
Costain, A. P.




Craigen. J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Hunter, Adam
Pavitt, Laurie


Crawshaw, Richard
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'I, EdgeHill)
Perry, Ernest G.


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Cunningham, G.(Isl'ngt'n, S&amp;F'sb'ry)
Jackson, Colin
Price, William (Rugby)


Cunningham, Dr. JohnA.(Whiteh'v'n)
Janner, Greville
Radice, Giles


Dalyell, Tam
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Reid, George


Davidson, Arthur
Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)
Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)


Deakins, Eric
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rowlands, Edward


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sandelson, Neville


D[...]gy, Hugh
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Selby, Harry


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)


Dempsey, James
Kaufman, Gerald
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Doig, Peter
Kilfedder, James A.
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (S'pney&amp;P'plar)


Dormand, J. D.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N.E.)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kinnock, Neil
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)


Dunn, Jamas A.
Lamborn, Harry
Silkin, Rt.Hn.S.C.(S'hwark, Dulwich)


Dunnett, Jack
Lamond, James
Silverman, Julius


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Lawson, George (Motherwell &amp; Wishaw)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Edelman, Maurico
Leadbitter, Ted
Stallard, A. W.


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Lee, John
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)


English, Michael
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Ennals, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stott, Roger


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lipton, Marcus
Strang, Gavin


Evans, John (Newton)
Loughlin, Charles
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Ewing, Harry (St'ling,F'kirk&amp;G'm'th)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
Taverne, Dick


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McCartney, Hugh
Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)


Flannery, Martin
MacCormack, Iain
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael
Macfarlane, Neil
Tierney, Sydney


Ford, Ben
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Tinn, James


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael
Tuck, Raphael


Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
Maclennan, Robert
Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)


Freeson, Reginald
Magee, Bryan
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Simon
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Watkins, David


George, Bruce
Marquand, David
Watt, Hamish


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Weitzman, David


Ginsburg, David
Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh,W'wch, E)
Wellbeloved, James


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mayhew, Patrick (RoyalT' bridgeWells)
West, Rt. Hn. Harry


Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph
Meacher, Michael
White, James


Gourlay, Harry

Whitehead, Phillip


Graham, Ted
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Whitlock, William


Grant, John (Islington, C.)
Millan, Bruce
Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)


Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)
Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Molloy, William
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)


Hamling, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)


Harper, Joseph
Moyle, Roland
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Ronald King
Winterton, Nicholas


Hatton, Frank
Oakes, Gordon
Woodall, Alec


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Ogden, Eric
Woof, Robert


Heffer, Eric S.
O'Halloran, Michael
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're.E)
O'Malley, Brian
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Hooley, Frank
Ovenden, John



Horam, John
Padley, Walter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Mr. John Golding.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parry, Robert

Question accordingly negatived.


It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Health and Safety at Work etc. Bill and the Ministers of the Crown Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ETC. BILL

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 2

GENERAL DUTIES OF EMPLOYERS TO THEIR EMPLOYEES

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 34 after 'such', insert 'information'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be for the the convenience of the House to discuss with this amendment Government Amendment No. 25.

Mr. Walker: Amendments Nos. 11 and 25 meet a further obligation which I undertook in Committee when the right hon. Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Whitelaw) was leading the Opposition in Committee. The amendments provide an obligation to keep the public informed about matters essential to their health and safety. I agreed with the spirit of the amendment that was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall shortly be moving an amendment to meet that point. I suggested to the Committee that it would be equally essential to put

employers under an unmistakable obligation to inform their employees about potential hazards to their health and safety.
Amendment No. 25 follows another undertaking that I gave in Committee. I do not think that there will be anyone who will dispute that the public have a right to know about potential hazards which could arise from their industrial activities. I think that it will be generally agreed that the main responsibility for keeping the public fully informed lies with industry itself. That applies subject to further information being made available by the commission and the enforcement authorities whenever necessary.
That is not in legal terms an easy requirement to draft—namely, an open-ended duty to provide information to the public—without indicating in some detail the kind of information to be made known and how it is to be made known. It would be unworkable and of little practical value to include in the Bill a regulation enabling us to specify who must give information to whom and how if we did not provide a flexible means of imposing specific requirements that really meant something. For example, this power could be used to specify, if a firm was planning to manufacture explosives, that notice should be given to the local Press of the scale of the proposed operations, the substances to be used and so on.
I could give a number of other examples but I shall not weary the House. I hope that the House will agree that the amendments provide useful additional powers.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Madel: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 3, line 18, leave out from 'by' to second 'of' in line 19 and insert
'employees or organisations representing employees'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment the House can conveniently discuss Opposition Amendments No. 18, in page 3, line 31, leave out 'if requested to do so by' and insert 'to consult'. and No. 19, in page 3, line 32, after 'above', insert 'and'.

Mr. Madel: That will further shorten the proceedings—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—which will meet with loud approval, as we have just heard.
I am sure that it comes as no surprise to the Under-Secretary of State that we are returning to this matter on Report, because, as he will recall, we had a tied vote on it in Committee and were given an assurance that we could have another go on Report.
What we are trying to do with Amendment No. 17 is to increase the awareness of health and safety matters of all people at work. Indeed, we are endorsing the central point of the Robens Report, which said in paragraph 64:
We regard the question of worker-involvement as quite central to this inquiry and to the main themes of our Report.
We all agree with that, and our amendments are designed to translate the recommendation into reality.
Not every employee is a member of a trade union, and it is a separate matter whether that is a good or a bad thing. But the Opposition feel that health and safety matters go across the frontiers of trade union and non-trade union membership. Hence Amendment No. 17. The Opposition recognise that the trade unions are in many cases the organisation representing the employees and would, therefore form the safety committee. Amendment No. 17 says as much—"organisations representing employees."
But there could be a works unit with a unionised or partially unionised shop floor, like a research department, with a professional group representing the employees in the unit and the managerial and secretarial unit as well. Given that

particular set-up in a works unit, we feel that it would be wrong to make the union responsible for nominating or electing the safety representatives. We believe that it would be contrary to the spirit of the Bill and of the Robens Report, which said also:
We envisage that these appointments "—
of safety representatives—
would be through election by employees arranged through the trade union recognised at the workplace or through works groups as appropriate.
It is these last two words "as appropriate" which emphasise the heart of our case. There are some cases where it will be appropriate for the works group which is not unionised or only partially unionised to elect the members of the safety committee. But health and safety at work is indivisible between union and non-union.
Amendment No. 18 would strengthen the Bill also and carry out the spirit of Robens. Once safety representatives have been appointed, we feel that it should be an obligation on the employer to consult them with a view to the setting up of a safety committee. Having got the representatives, it is obvious that the committee is the next step. Therefore, we feel it wrong for an employer merely to sit back to see whether he is requested to set up a safety committee by the representatives.
We feel and hope that the Government will recognise our case and meet us because we felt from the debate in Committee that the minority Government were pursuing a minority case. Here is a chance to make an alteration in tune with the spirit of the Bill and of the Robens Report—to extend health and safety measures and make sure that everyone at work is advantaged by the Bill.

Mr. Harold Walker: I hope that the House will not think it discourteous of me if I reply very briefly. We have been over this issue on Second Reading and in detail in Committee. We have been over it each year since 1970 on a succession of Private Members' Bills which had the support of the Labour Party. The arguments are very clear and well understood in the House. Clearly, it is


a matter of the political divide between us, and I do not think that it would really serve the purpose of the House for me to go over the ground interminably again, tilling it to dust.
If the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) quotes the Robens Report, I am entitled to point out that it was the decision of the last Labour Government in 1970 to set up the Robens Committee in parallel with the Bill we introduced then to provide for work people's safety representatives, and that our action really pre-empted the ground. Consequently, to do what the hon. Gentleman proposes would be inconsistent with the line that we followed throughout our short period in Opposition.
Thirdly, I say that if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite really believe what they are prepared to pay lip service to in terms of worker participation they must begin here, with workers being directly involved. The hon. Gentleman asks that workpeople's safety representatives be appointed by organisations representing employees. I cannot think what other organisations ought to represent employees apart from trade unions. It would help the House if the hon. Gentleman could tell us what other organisations he has in mind. He has taken us back to the reactionary nonsense of the Industrial Relations Act, which, mercifully, we are shortly to get rid of.
If we were to accept what the hon. Member is proposing it would be an open invitation to every break-away union to seek a roundabout, spurious recognition, reluctantly wrung from employers. This would have most serious consequences for industrial relations. For these reasons I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Adam Butler: Even though the hour is late I do not think that we can accept what the Under-Secretary has said without comment. He has normally shown remarkable consideration and moderation. He is now returning to the sort of blindness and prejudice which I thought we had left behind in our 1971 debates. The simple question is: why should trade unions be given the sole right of requiring management to establish safety committees? Why should trade unions have the sole

right of appointing representatives to such committees? We propose that in certain circumstances organisations of employees should appoint. Where there is no organisation we suggest that it should be the employees themselves.
I come to the definition of "trade union". This is laid down in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill as being an organisation of workers which has among its objectives the regulation of relationships between workers and employers. This can apply to any organisation set up on the spur of the moment, for example on a building site. Are we prepared to say that such an organisation, established at a moment's notice, should have sole rights in safety matters?
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) has drawn attention to paragraph 64 of the Robens Report, which said:
We regard the question of worker involvement as quite central to this Inquiry".
We entirely accept that argument. The Minister began his speech by implying that the concept of worker participation in this and other matters was alien to Conservative Members. He is totally wrong and I refute such an allegation. I have replied with some feeling because I feel strongly about this. We set out our feelings on this subject in the codes set out in the Industrial Relations Act. We said that management should aim at improving standards of safety in consultation and co-operation with employees and their representatives. Surely this is evidence of what the Conservative Government felt on this subject.
The House needs little or no reminding that it was Labour's intention to remove the legislative backing for this situation in their Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill. Fortunately the matter has been put right in Committee. I support the amendment. It gives workers as a whole, not just union representatives, rights in the matters of health and safety.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Tyler: I too support the amendment. This is consistent. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) expressed our misgivings on Second Reading, and I did so in Committee. However, I do not support this proposal in quite the same terms as Conservative


Members. Their relationship with the trade union movement is at an all-time low. This is why many loyal unionists must regard the Conservative approach to this problem as being as suspect as others would regard that of the Government.
We approach the subject on the basis of logic. I have heard it said that we have not only a minority Government with a minority view but a Government representing a minority of the work force. Of 24 million people at work, fewer than 11 million belong to affiliated unions. The unions do not have a monopoly of concern for safety and welfare at work. As I have said, my own limited professional experience suggests that there would be grave anomalies, as there were under the Industrial Relations Act, in the proposal in the Bill.

Mr. Harold Walker: There is nothing in the Bill to prevent any employer with an unorganised work force from entering into arrangements with them for the appointment of safety representatives and joint safety committees.

Mr. Tyler: The Minister has slightly missed my point. There is often a small group of non-unionist employees in any work force and it is their interests that concern me. It is not necessarily true that a work force is totally disorganised. It may be partially organised. For those who happen to be union members to be the only ones consulted on these questions is a grave anomaly.
The Minister gave a partial assurance in Committee that this would be looked at again when worker participation proposals come forward. We have had no such assurance today. His arrogant political approach depressed me. There is a good case for considering this on sheer logic. We did not have such a reply from the Minister, so I and those of my hon. Friends who care to join me will vote for the amendment.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member has referred to his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who takes a great interest in these matters. Is the hon. Member present tonight and will he be joining his hon. Friend in the Lobby?

Mr. Tyler: I am not sure whether that is relevant to the amendment, but my

hon. Friend consulted me about the timing of this debate and hoped to be back in time from a speaking engagement. If the hon. Member is so anxious to see my hon. Friend, he might achieve that object by speaking at some length and allowing him time to get here. I hope that my hon. Friend and as many others of my colleagues as are available will support the amendment.

Mr. Robert Adley: I support my hon. Friends on this matter.
The Government have one important lesson to learn. This provides an illustration. The views of individual workers and the views of groups of workers are by no means always the same as the views of the official trade unions purporting to represent them.

Mr. James Prior: I am told that the proceedings of the Committee were amicable and constructive and that a wide measure of agreement was reached. It is a pity that on these few amendments the same degree of constructiveness, agreement and amicability could not be sustained because the UnderSecretary—who I thought was trying to speed things up—gave a very much less satisfactory answer to this side than he gave during the previous hour and a half to his hon. Friends on other amendments. I regret that that has happened.
This involves a question of principle for my right hon. and hon. Friends which extends beyond the consequences of this Bill. We welcome the support of the Liberal Party for this amendment. I hope they will turn out in force to support us. They have made much noise in recent weeks about the need for a strong Opposition. They have a chance of showing that tonight. I hope they will do so. Alternatively perhaps we shall be subjected once more to the sight of the Liberals who talk a great deal when it does not matter but, when it comes to an important point, are never here to do anything about it.

Mr. Tyler: The right hon. Gentleman is capable of making the most extraordinary statements. He was absent when we discussed agriculture, which was previously his responsibility. It is incredible that he should come forward and make that accusation on this issue. Is he giving


the assurance that the whole of the Conservative Party will vote on this amendment? That will be a most interesting spectacle.

Mr. Prior: At least everyone here will be expected to vote on this amendment.
On the subject of agriculture, I visited the hon. Gentleman's constituency and told his farmers what they should do next time.
Clause 4(2) gives the trade unions the exclusive right to elect safety representatives from amongst the employees to sit on safety committees. We have always accepted that the trade union is the traditional body which represents employees in the factory on matters such as health and safety. It is right and reasonable that it should continue to do so. The present Bill intends to go far beyond that in ways which I cannot think even the trade unionists want.
I see that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler) has left the Chamber. If I have driven the Liberals from the Chamber that is no bad thing.
Supposing there is a non-unionised work force in a small factory, will those people have no representation on safety matters, or will trades unions come in from outside to represent employees in a factory? Apart from the obvious absurdity of this, it goes against one of the principles in the Robens Report, which was to involve all employees in consultation about matters affecting their health and safety. For the same reason we

should like consultation between employers and employees to be compulsory and not, as in the Government's Bill, a matter to be left to the wishes of the employers and employees. The underlying aim of the Bill is to increase the awareness of employers and employees of the vital importance of health and safety matters.

I wish to emphasise again that we are not opposed to trade unions having an important say in these matters, but it is not acceptable to us to deprive all other employees of equal rights in these matters. After all, all employees incur some dangers to their health and safety, and disasters such as those in recent weeks do not discriminate between groups of employees.

There is, therefore, absolutely no justification either for the Government's attiture that there should be only trade union representatives involved or the Liberal Party's attitude that we as a party are at a low ebb in our relationships with the trade unions. I find that the trade unions want to co-operate with the Government in office and wish to co-operate with us. I only wish we had had more sense when we were in office from the then Opposition. If we had done so, the country might not be in the trouble that it is in today. I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote in favour of the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 251.

Division No. 44:
AYES
10.27 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, Mark
Eyre, Reginald


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fairgrieve, Russell


Ancram, M.
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Churchill, W. S.
Fidler, Michael


Atkins, R.Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)
Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Baker, Kenneth
Clark, William (Croydon, S.)
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Banks, Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)


Bell, Ronald
Clegg, Walter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Benyon, W.
Cockcroft, John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton Coldfield)


Biffen, John
Cope, John
Fry, Peter


Blaker, Peter
Corrie, John
Gardiner, George (Reigate&amp;Banstead)


Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)
Costain, A. P.
Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Crouch, David
Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David


Bray, Ronald
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Brittan, Leon
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Goodhart, Philip


Bryan, Sir Paul
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Goodlad, A.


Buchanan Smith, Alick
Drayson, Burnaby
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Buck, Antony
Durant, Tony
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Budgen, Nick
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Bulmer, Esmond
Elliott, Sir William
Gray, Hamish


Burden, F. A.
Emery, Peter
Grist, Ian




Grylis, Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Gurden, Harold
Marten, Neil
Shelton, William (L'mb'th,Streath'm)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mather, Carol
Shersby, Michael


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mawby, Ray
Silvester, Fred


Hampson, Dr. Keith
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Sims, Roger


Hannam, John
Mayhew, Patrick (RoyalT'bridgeWells)
Sinclair, Sir George


Hawkins, Paul
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Skeet T. H. H.


Hayhoe, Barney
Mills, Peter
Smith, Dudley (W'wick&amp;L'm'ngton)


Henderson, Barry (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Moate, Roger
Spence John


Heseltine, Michael
Money, Ernle
Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)


Higgins, Terence
Monro, Hector
Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)


Holland, Philip
Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)
Sproat, Iain


Hordern, Peter
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Stainton, Keith


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morgan, Geraint
Stanbrook, Ivor


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stanley, John


Hurd, Douglas
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Neave, Airey
Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)


James, David
Neubert, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


Jessel, Toby
Newton, Tony (Braintree)
Taylor, Edward M. (Gl'gow, C'cart)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Onslow, Cranley
Tebbit, Norman


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Temple-Morris, Peter


Jopling, Michael
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net,H'dn S.)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pardoe, John
Townsend, C. D.


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Pattie, Geoffrey
Tugendhat, Christopher


Kilfedder, James A.
Percival, Ian
Tyler, Paul


Kimball, Marcus
Pink, R. Bonner
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Viggers, Peter


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Prior, Rt. Hn. James
Waddington, David


Knox, David
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Wakeham, John


Lamont, Norman
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Raison, Timothy
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Lawrence,Ivan
Rathbone, Tim
Walters, Dennis


Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)
Redmond, Robert
Weatherill, Bernard


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Wells, John


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Renton, Rt. Hn. SirDavid (H't'gd'ns're)
Wiggin, Jerry


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


Loveridge, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Winterton, Nicholas


Luce, Richard
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


MacArthur, Ian
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Macfarlane, Neil
Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)
Worsley, Sir Marcus


MacGregor, John
Sainsbury, Tim



McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr. Adam Butler and


Madel, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Cecil Parkinson.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Coleman, Donald
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Allaun, Frank
Concannon, J. D.
Evans, John (Newton)


Archer, Peter (Warley, West)
Conlan, Bernard
Ewing, Harry (St'ling.F'kirk&amp;G'm'th)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cook, R. F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray&amp;Nairn)


Ashley, Jack
Craigen. J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Crawshaw, Richard
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Atkinson, Norman
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Flannery, Martin


Bagier, Gordon, A. T.
Cryer, G. R.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cunningham.G. (Isl'ngt'n,S&amp;F'sb'ry)
Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Cunningham, Dr. JohnA. (Whiteh'v'n)
Ford, Ben


Bates, Alf
Dalyell, Tam
Forrester, John


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Davidson, Arthur
Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Freeson, Reginald


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)


Booth, Albert
Deakins, Eric
George, Bruce


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Gilbert, Dr. John


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Ginsburg, David


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Delargy, Hugh
Golding, John


Bradley, Tom
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Gourlay, Harry


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Dempsey, James
Graham, Ted


Brown, Bob( NewcastleuponTyne.W.)
Doig, Peter
Grant, John (Islington, C.)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Dormand, J. D.
Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)


Buchan, Norman
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Buchanan, Richard(G'gow,Springbrn)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)


Butter, Mrs. Joyce(H'gey, WoodGreen)
Dunn, James A.
Hamling, William


Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wich)
Dunnett, Jack
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Ian
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Cant, R. B.
Edelman, Maurice
Hatton, Frank


Carter, Ray
Edge, Geoff
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Heffer, Eric S.


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're,E)


Clemitson, Ivor
English, Michael
Hooley, Frank


Cocks, Michael
Ennals, David
Horam, John







Huckfield, Leslie
Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh,W'wch,E)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Meacher, Michael
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mikardo, Ian
Spriggs, Leslie


Hunter, Adam
Millan, Bruce
Stallard, A. W.


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'I,EdgeHill)
Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Irving, Rt Hn. Sydney (Dartford)
Molloy, William
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)


Jackson Colin
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Janner, Greville
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stott, Roger


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Strang, Gavin


Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)
Moyle, Roland
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


John, Brynmor
Murray, Ronald King
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Johnson, James(K'ston upon Hull,W)
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)
Swain, Thomas


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Oakes, Gordon
Taverne, Dick


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
O'Malley, Brian
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Orbach, Maurice
Tierney, Sydney


Judd, Frank
Ovenden, John
Tinn, James


Kaufman, Gerald
Padley, Walter
Tomlinson, John


Kelley, Richard
Palmer, Arthur
Torney, Tom


Kerr, Russell
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Tuck, Raphael


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Parry, Robert
Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.


Kinnock, Neil
Pavitt, Laurie
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Lambie, David
Perry, Ernest G.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)


Lamborn, Harry
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lamond, James
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Latham, Arthur(CityofW'minsterP'ton)
Price, William (Rugby)
Watkins, David


Lawson, George (Motherwell &amp; Wishaw)
Radice, Glles
Watt, Hamish


Leadbitter, Ted
Reid, George
Weitzman, David


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wellbeloved, James


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
White, James


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Whitehead, Phillip


Lipton, Marcus
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Whitlock, William


Loughlin, Charles
Roderick, Caerwyn E.
Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


McCartney, Hugh
Rose, Paul B.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)


MacCormack, Iain
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Rowlands, Edward
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


McGuire, Michael
Sandelson, Neville
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)


Maclennan, Robert
Sedgemore, Bryan
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Selby, Harry
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


McNamara, Kevin
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)
Woodall, Alec


Madden, M. O. F.
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Woof, Robert


Magee, Bryan
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (S'pney &amp; P'plar)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Mahon, Simon
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N.E.)
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham,D'ford)



Marks, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt. Hn. S.C.(S'hwark, Dulwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Marquand, David
Sillars, James
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Silverman, Julius
Mr. Joseph Harper.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. David Watkins: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 3, line 36 at end insert—
'(7) It shall be the duty of every employer, where an accident has occurred, to facilitate access to his premises and plant by the legal and expert advisers of any safety representatives, safety committee or recognised trade unions (within the meaning of the regulations) of his employees for inspection to obtain information required by them in connection with the accident'.
The amendment places a statutory—[Interruption.] It places a statutory duty on employers to facilitate inspection—

Mr. Michael Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some of us are rather interested in hearing the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is always a little difficulty when a large number of

hon. Members are leaving the Chamber. But I could hear the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins). Perhaps those hon. Members leaving the Chamber will do so quietly.

Mr. Watkins: The amendment would place a statutory duty on employers to facilitate inspections of their premises after accidents have occurred.
On Second Reading and in Committee I referred to an explosion which occurred last year at Tennent's Foundry, Coat-bridge, where three men were killed in appalling circumstances—in a flood of molten metal—and where there had been delay before inspection of the premises took place. Indeed, there were three weeks of discussions between representatives of the insurers, Eagle Star Insurance Group, and representatives of the dependants of those who had been killed


and injured before agreement was reached on an inspection.
The insurance company took exception to having that case quoted by me. Subsequently, at the request of the company, I met one of the directors and discussed the matter in detail with him. He claimed that there had been no delay. Indeed, he drew my attention to the fact that his company's efforts in accident prevention had been recognised this year by the award of the Sir George Earle Trophy, the premier award for industrial safety by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I willingly take this opportunity to add that to the record to supplement my previous remarks.
In the generality of cases there is a strong argument for speeding up investigations at the scenes of accidents—I emphasise that point—because witnesses will be available at the places where the accidents occurred. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve.
It can often be as long as two years before an inspection takes place. Amongst other matters, it means that witnesses' memories become blurred and they can more easily be discredited because of the lapse of time.
Some insurance companies acting for employers can and do obstruct inspections—in no illegal manner, I hasten to add—by the legal and technical representatives of injured parties. There are examples where, even when inspections have been arranged, objection is raised to photographs being taken.
My attention has been drawn only today to a case in the Midlands within the last few days where, an inspection having been agreed to, objection was taken by the representatives of the insurance company acting for the employers to photographs being taken on the ground that it was not within the terms of the agreement that had been reached for the inspection. In some instances objection has been taken to witnesses being interviewed. It is not unusual for it to be necessary to obtain a court order before an inspection can be made. All this seriously disadvantages claimants and ought not to be tolerated in this day and age.
I hope that my hon. Friend will not say that this matter is outside the scope

of the Bill. If it were, the amendment would be out of order and would not have been selected for debate.
I hope also that I shall not be told that this is a matter for civil action between the contending parties. It certainly is in the present situation, and the question which arises in that setting is: what is the cause of contention?
10.45 p.m.
The facilities of inspections is a duty which can be placed upon employers. This would not only do away with the disadvantages about which I have spoken, but in many instances it would help to facilitate the rapid resolution of cases. Surely if an early inspection revealed that no case could be proceeded with, that would save everyone time and trouble in having protracted proceedings, which often lead to having an inspection.
When someone has been killed or injured in the course of his work, the main concern of those whose responsibility it is to compensate the injured party often seems to be rather to avoid paying out compensation. In a wider context, I suppose that this is an inevitable by product of a society which seems to be concerned more with money than with people. It is time that we came down on the side of people. My amendment seeks to do that. Accordingly, I commend it to the House.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I support the argument presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) in favour of the amendment. I have spent a large part of my professional life pursuing claims for damages for those who have been injured in the course of their work. I have found that the lack of a provision such as this has been an intense handicap to the successful pursuit of legitimate claims.
In cases of fatal accidents, it is usually very much more possible to obtain the sort of information that one requires, because there has to be an inquest and the Factory Inspector invariably carries out an investigation. But in cases of accidents resulting in something less than death, it is frequently almost impossible to obtain the necessary information until one has initially formulated a claim, pursued it with the insurance company, exhausted the potentiality of negotiations


and, after a denial of liability, extracted from their insurance company an agreement to allow access to premises.
My firm is concerned with a number of such cases at present. In cases in which the injured man suffers from retrograde amnesia or is so severely injured that he does not know what happened, unless one can obtain information from other sources to formulate the claim and, where there are no witnesses, unless the trade union representatives or the injured man's legal advisers can visit the scene of the accident and examine equipment, and so on, it is impossible to formulate the claim at all or to get the claim on its feet.
We must consider the extent of the problem of industrial injuries. There were 709,000 in 1972. Approximately 10 per cent. of the persons involved recovered compensation, whereas there are considerable grounds for thinking that at least 50 per cent. are entitled to compensation as the law stands. Every step should be taken to ensure that those who are entitled to compensation receive it. The amendment would facilitate that object.
Although I feel that the present system of compensation is extremely unsatisfactory and inadequate, measures which will enable that machinery to work must be undertaken. This is an essential position, especially in regard to serious injuries. I urge my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to accept the amendment.

Mr. Ernle Money: I strongly support what was said by other hon. Members about what has been an unsatisfactory aspect of the bringing of civil claims before the courts, particularly the point touched on by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins). His point carries great weight. The uncertainty of adducing evidence in so many claims is one which still provides an element of lottery in what should be a far more exact form of judging claims which may affect the life of an individual who has been injured, or his family.
In the long run the real future will lie with the Pearson Commission report and the sooner it is before the House and something is done about this matter the better. No one could have appeared in personal injury cases without realising the amount of evidence that can, with no

intention of dishonesty, disappear within a very short period. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) spoke of retrospective amnesia, but there are so many cases of this sort where accident report books get lost, where the names of potential witnesses are lost because they have moved on to another firm, where plant is changed, and where a particularly unfair burden is placed on the plaintiff or his advisers because he cannot remember how the accident took place, on what plant it occurred, or what was the precise nature of the machinery with which he was dealing. I hope that the House will accept the amendment.
I found the wording of the amendment a little baffling. The wording
by the legal and expert advisers of any safety representatives, safety committee or recognised trade unions … of his employers
may need some tidying up. I do not know whether he would wish to deal with that matter now.

Mr. David Watkins: I recognise the point the hon. Member is making about possible tidying up, but I am awaiting with interest what my hon. Friend the Minister will say before I comment.

Mr. Money: In broad terms the amendment will deal with many matters. It will produce far greater justice for the individual claimant, and it will produce something which is probably of great importance—a corpus of accident cases from which it will be possible to learn, rather than a series of precedents in the courts. For far too long the attitude in the courts has been merely to hand down a tradition of individual cases. Because of that the people on the shop floor have not been able to learn from the circumstances of an accident how to avoid something of the sort being repeated. I warmly welcome the amendment.

Mr. Harold Walker: I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) has anticipated what I was going to say. I fully appreciate the point since his amendment and a similar one which he tabled in Standing Committee have highlighted a situation which is clearly indefensible. I hope that what has been said will come to the attention of every employer and every employer's legal insurance adviser.
However, the amendment is outside the purposes of the Bill. The Bill is concerned with preventing accidents and not with facilitating proceedings to obtain compensation once an accident has happened. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) drew our attention to the Pearson Commission. The findings of the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury will no doubt be highly relevant. This problem is better considered in that context.
The regulation we are proposing to make under Clause 2(4) or (6) for the appointment of workpeoples' safety representatives and for safety committees will empower safety committees and representatives to investigate the scene of an accident. I cannot give my hon. Friend much consolation, but I hope that he will draw some comfort from what I have said about these committees.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Employers know if they are going to have to pay compensation in circumstances in which they are at fault and legally one may suffer because the causes of an accident will be found as a result of proper investigation. Employers at fault will have to pay for it.

Mr. Walker: There is a lot of good sense in that but my hon. Friend would agree that it would be inappropriate for a Minister to say words from this Dispatch Box which might preempt or be prejudicial to the Royal Commission before it publishes its findings.

Mr. Money: This is a point of principle of some importance. Would the hon. Member not accept that one risk involved at this stage is that in far too many cases the lessons from accidents, if they are going to court, are not put into effect? The advantage of the amendment is that this information can be put on record at an early stage, and irrespective of its legal implications, so that information can stop accidents as well as being merely evidence to get damages for an individual.

Mr. Walker: I would ask the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends not to overlook the considerable widening of the provisions for obtaining information and particularly the way in which we are not

only relieving the restriction on the Factory Inspectorate getting information but imposing additional obligations on inspectors to provide information. I am not saying that that meets the point in the Amendment but I have in mind what the hon. Member for Ipswich has said.

Mr. Prior: I had not intended to take part in this little debate but I listened to the Minister's speech and to the hon. Gentleman opposite who acted for one of my constituents in a case of this sort and to my hon. Friend, and it seems to me that they made out a powerful case.
I do not understand why something of this nature should not be put into the Bill. It is in order under the Bill. It may not be strictly in line with the rest of the Bill, but it covers important points. Why do we always have to be careful about these things? Why can we not be brave for once and put in something which hon. Members want? If there is a desire to have this in the Bill, could not the hon. Gentleman talk it over with his officials and come to an arrangement whereby it is put down in another place? In many respects that would meet the wishes of the House.
This is an important point. We have all come across such cases. They are often dealt with by hon. Gentlemen, and the hon. Member has made out the case. I would not, of course, press it tonight but I hope that it will be looked at again.

Mr. Walker: If I may speak again, I am impressed by the intervention of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). I have not had the opportunity to welcome him in his new incarnation. May I do so now? I hope that he will occupy that position for a long time—geographically, too.
The right hon. Gentleman has brought to bear the awesome authority of the Opposition Front Bench. I take it he is speaking for the Opposition in this. I hope that if we come forward with a form of words which meets what seems to be a universal desire, we shall have the support of the right hon. Gentleman and his party. I hope that I do not find myself again in the embarrassing position I did on the agricultural changes when I tried to meet the wishes of hon. Members and was clobbered by hon. Members. I hope hon. Members will be united in


what I hope will be a grateful response on this.
If my hon. Friend will agree to withdraw his amendment, I undertake to see whether we can do something in another place. The House would not expect me to enter into a further commitment.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will do something about the matter in another place or when the Bill returns to this House. As my hon. Friend is probably only too well aware, there is a similar provision in the mining industry under Section 123 of the Mines and Quarries Act. It is not exactly the same as the amendment, but it is very much along those lines. Therefore, my hon. Friend will perhaps do well to ask his advisers to look at Section 123—

Mr. Harold Walker: I am familiar with it.

Mr. Skinner: I am sure that my hon. Friend is, as he comes from a part-mining constituency.
I hope that my hon. Friend will consider the section and, on the basis of what can be done in relation to factories and other places of employment, introduce an amendment that will fit the bill not merely to suit himself and the blandishments of Conservative Members but to fit as nearly as possible the amendment.

Mr. David Watkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has made the important point that we are not talking about something that is unprecedented, that such inspections have been regular practice in the mining industry. We are seeking not to introduce something new but to extend that type of inspection into other areas.
This has been an extremely useful, if short, debate, by no means less useful in the way in which it has clearly moved my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) both indicated warm support, based on extensive legal experience, having represented people in cases. They very much supported my point about the necessity for early inspections.
I could not help noticing that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said precisely one of the things that I had said I hoped he would not say—that the amendment was outside the scope of the Bill. But his subsequent remarks indicated that he has taken the point that there is a feeling on both sides of the House that it should be brought within the scope of the Bill. The unexpected and very welcome intervention of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) on the Opposition Front Bench obviously played an important part. I note in particular my hon. Friend's firm undertaking to examine the matter in another place. I shall be watching developments to see that that undertaking is carried out, as I have no doubt it will be.
In view of that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

GENERAL DUTIES OF EMPLOYERS AND SELFEMPLOYED TO PERSONS OTHER THAN THEIR EMPLOYEES

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 4, line 5 at end insert—
(3) In such cases as may be prescribed, it shall be the duty of every employer and every self-employed person, in the prescribed circumstances and in the prescribed manner, to give to persons (not being his employees) who may be affected by the way in which he conducts his undertaking the prescribed information about such aspects of the way in which he conducts his undertaking as might affect their health or safety.'—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Clause 4

GENERAL DUTIES OF PERSONS CONCERNED WITH PREMISES TO PERSONS OTHER THAN THEIR EMPLOYEES

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move, Amendment No. 28, in page 4, line 22 leave out 'when properly used'.
This is essentially a drafting amendment aimed at clarification and simplification. It stems from a point put to me by the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew), who suggested that the words "when properly used" not only do not really contribute anything in the context of this clause, but indeed might have the unintended effect of


offering to lawyers a specious basis on which to defend a client accused of not taking the necessary measures to ensure that plant, substances on premises which he made available for general use were safe. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right and I am sure that the intended effect of the clause will be better achieved if the words "when properly used" are deleted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

GENERAL DUTIES OF MANUFACTURERS ETC. AS REGARDS ARTICLES AND SUBSTANCES FOR USE AT WORK

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): The next amendment is No. 31. I understand that the Government are prepared to accept it.

Amendment made: No. 31, in page 5, line 21 leave out 'reasonably practicable' and insert 'necessary'.—[Mr. Rose.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next amendment is No. 34. Again I understand that it was agreed that the Government would be prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment made: No. 34, in page 6, line 1 leave out 'reasonably practicable' and insert 'necessary'.—[Mr. Rose.]

Clause 8

DUTY NOT TO INTERFERE WITH OR MISUSE THINGS PROVIDED PURSUANT TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS

Mr. Rose: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 7, line 15, after 'intentionally', insert 'or recklessly'.
The purpose of the amendment, I assume, is less contentious than the purpose of earlier amendments. I can, therefore, move it briefly and with the minimum of argument. It seeks to add the word "recklessly" so as to cover a situation in which there is interference with or misuse of safety equipment because the offender does not care whether his action is dangerous.
There may be no intention to expose any employee on the premises to risk. It is hard to visualise anyone wilfully so

doing, except perhaps in the case of vandalism. The amendment provides for a situation not where there is a definite intent but where the employee has a right to expect a far more stringent safeguard than is provided as the clause stands. In any event, the burden of proof and the intention would be extremely difficult to establish unless "recklessly" were inserted. It is against reckless actions on the part of employers or the action of others on behalf of employers, and fellow employees, that the safeguard is required. For that reason I trust that my hon. Friend will see his way to accepting this very short but relevant and worthwhile amendment which provides for a more stringent duty upon those who are dealing with safety equipment.

Mr. Harold Walker: I shall try to emulate the commendable brevity of my hon. Friend. I tell him right away that I am happy to accept the amendment. It provides a desirable strengthening of the clause. I am grateful to him.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMISSION AND THE EXECUTIVE

Mr. Madel: I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 7, line 30, leave out six ' and insert seven'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we shall take Opposition Amendments No. 37, in page 7, line 35, leave out 'three' and insert 'two', and No. 38, in page 7, line 37, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.
Amendment No. 135, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), in line 38, leave out ' and ' and insert:
'(c) as to two others, consult the Council of Engineering Institutions; and '.
and further Opposition Amendments No. 39, in line 39, leave out ' any ' and insert the ', and 40, in line 39, leave out 'he may appoint'.

Mr. Madel: In Committee, although we talked a lot about what the commission can do, we said little about its composition. Far be it from me to anticipate the Under-Secretary of State's reply to Amendment No. 135, but I


suspect that it will be that consultations as to who shall be on the commission are open-ended and wide. In Committee we wanted to stipulate that the medical profession would be consulted, but we were told that anyone could be consulted and the medical profession would not be ruled out.
But since then we have had second thoughts. First, we are not proposing any change in the number of commissioners; we are not trying to increase or reduce the number. But we want to avoid any danger—or at least minimise the risk—of the traditional CBI-TUC tug of war. By having a three-a-side commission, we should be merely transferring the argument from one room to another.
We also want to re-emphasise the desperate need for expertise to be wedged between the two sides of the commission. The commission may be receiving a mass of medical and scientific advice. Although anyone can find answers to any questions the commission may ask, what matters is that the commission can provide the answers to questions. Pushing up the number of independent people who could be appointed would further strengthen the commission.
We suggest that two members of the commission should be appointed after consultation with the CBI and two after consultation with the TUC, and up to five members appointed with regard to other bodies. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to give a pledge that the full membership of nine will be appointed to the commission, because we think it essential that the full number should be appointed. This is such a new and important step, with considerable scientific and medical implications, that we feel it necessary to have the full nine members, five of them being from groups other than those associated with the CBI and the TUC.

Mr. Tom Ellis: I am aware of the lateness of the hour and propose to be very brief in speaking to Amendment No. 135. It springs primarily from the concern expressed by people in the mining industry at the absorption of the Mines Inspectorate within the general framework of the Bill.
This matter has been discussed previously by representatives of the industry

with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I have read the Committee proceedings and I am aware that the Government have resisted all attempts to have any separate arrangements for the mining industry, despite the widely expressed concern. I understand the Government's reasons. Indeed, my right hon. Friend said that the Bill would fall apart if the Mines Inspectorate was to be dissociated. Therefore, Amendment No. 135 is the least that can be done to try to meet the anxieties expressed in the mining industry in this respect.
I am aware that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend have given assurances about their intentions, and I am not questioning their good faith. But assurances are one thing and legislative provision is another. People move on to other jobs; empires can be built and one part of a concern might become less important than it was.
11.15 p.m.
I shall give an example of the sort of thing which I fear might happen if there is not some engineering representation on the commission. A substantial grant is now made towards safety research in the mining industry, within the Department of Energy. We have, for instance, the research establishment for safety in mines at Buxton, which has done a lot of good work over 50 years, but I am sure that the people employed at the establishment would be the first to agree that a great deal of work in safety research in the mining industry is still needed. After the Bill goes through the grant will not go directly to the Department but to the commission, which will determine the priorities as to where the sum will be spent.
If the commission is composed as at present proposed the mining industry will suffer. There will be pressures even from the research establishment itself, which will see opportunities to widen its empire and a widening of the scope to other industries will mean an inevitable weakening of effort directed specifically to mining and there will proportionately be less emphasis towards research in the mining industry.
It is because of the peculiar situation of the mining industry that I have put down the amendments in my name.
I remind the House that there is no mining industry in the world, or if I am not correct in that, at least there is no mining industry in Europe not directly responsible through a mines inspectorate for the safety of its operations to a Minister in Parliament. The Bill will alter that situation completely. The mines inspectorate will be responsible to the commission on which there might not be even a single professional engineer.
It may have escaped the notice of the House, and of Ministers, that an expert knowledge of safety matters in his industry is the unique professional requirement of the mining engineer. Before he is allowed to practice his calling he is obliged to pass a stiff examination in practical and theoretical requirements for safe working of mines. There are detailed and voluminous regulations and intimate acquaintance with them is required. These regulations have not been conjured up out of the air—they are, in effect, the codifying of what is at any time the best current engineers' safety practice, and they are constantly being revised by engineers in the mining industry.
There was a great deal of discussion earlier when my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) attempted to have his new Clause 2 passed about the tragic accident in Scunthorpe and about whether through a certain type of planning procedure it might have been avoided. While the example given by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) might have been avoided by having a planning arrangement which went before a safety commission, the Flixborough accident would have happened irrespective of whether such an arrangement had existed, precisely for the reason that the changes which must have taken place in the industry in Flixborough were natural evolutionary changes which are taking place all the time in all industries.
What is needed is something to keep abreast of the changes which are taking place daily. A good example is to be found in the coal mining industry. It might surprise hon. Members to know that in 1967, or possibly a little earlier, around 1963 or 1964, as much as four-fifths of the output of coal in this country was mined outside the roof support regulations. The regulations were not

sufficiently modern and adapted to cater for the new technical type of mining. But the mining industry got round this great difficulty by having a system in which the mines inspectorate was able at local level to grant exemptions from the regulations.
It is one thing for an inspector to grant an exemption from regulations when the inspector is responsible directly to a Minister. It might be a different thing if the inspector is responsible to a commission which may not have one engineer represented upon it. That, briefly, is the case. There may be an argument put forward by the Minister to the effect that it is all very well to ask for some particular class of people to be on the Commission but that this could lead to similar requests from lots of organisations, from the medical profession and from bodies such as RoSPA.
My case is that the engineers on the Council of Engineering Institutions are a generalised body of people, in the same way that employers and work people are generalised bodies. They do not represent a narrow front. The least that might be done to reconcile the anxiety of the mining industry and the wishes of the Government would be for them to accept the proposals contained in my amendment.

Mr. Michael Latham: The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) will, I hope, forgive me if I address my remarks to Amendment No. 36 rather than to his amendment, about which he has spoken so eloquently.
I was heartened by the remarks of the Under-Secretary in Committee. Dealing with a similar amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) he said:
The Government are reluctant to commit themselves to additional membership from those who have particular interests to represent. The Government feel that the commission should contain an independent element which would not represent any organisation and, therefore, would not be obliged to consult it or speak on its behalf or take into account its policy. Such an element could bring an independent judgment into the work of the Commission."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 7th May, 1974; c. 118.]
That seemed to be an important statement and I was therefore glad to see my hon. Friend's amendment. When the Government come to set up the corn-mission it is important that the people on


it should be independent people, of independent judgment. If too high a proportion of the six out of nine, as the Bill says, are nominated by the TUC and CBI they will inevitably tend to be the sort of people who are always nominated by such organisations. They will be the "safe" people, people with a great deal of experience but not necessarily people with new ideas.
From my previous experience in trade associations I know that there is difficulty in finding people to serve on such bodies. When the Minister comes to appoint independent members I hope there will not be the usual Whitehall trawl and we will not be looking again at the "safe" men, distinguished as they are. I hope that we will look for new people with new and dynamic ideas to handle these new problems. We do not want "safe" men or even responsible men. We want the best men and the more independent they are the better.

Mr. Adam Butler: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel). At first sight what is proposed in the Bill appears unexceptionable, particularly as the subsection requires the Secretary of State only to consult organisations representing employees and employers, rather than to take their recommendations. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) has said, there has been a tendency to read "nominate" for "consult" and this would mean that we would tend to get the pure nominees, the "safe" men, from these organisations.
It is important that we should ask at least for an assurance from the Minister that the consultation should take place and that he should put foremost the question of qualifications and expertise in health and safety matters, and not rely solely on the advice of these two bodies.
If the Minister is not prepared to accept all our amendments he might accept Amendment No. 36, which increases the minimum number of members to seven. The first six men would be appointed after consultation with the employers' and employees' organisations. When those posts were filled the final three, for which the Bill allows at present, would not be filled. This is largely hypothetical, but that could be the situation.
My hon. Friend has pressed for the maximum number on the commission. I support that. If we increase the minimum number to seven it removes the hypothetical situation I have suggested. It is an amendment the Minister could accept completely fairly without going against anything which has been said on this matter by either side. We prefer that he should accept all the amendments standing in our names.

Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Gentleman is seeking by these amendments to restrict the rôle of industrial organisations, unions and employer associations by putting them in a minority even if they act in concert on the commission. The Opposition say that my right hon. Friend should have to appoint at least three other members, rather than one, to join the industrial members. That seems somewhat surprising. Assuming the identification of some hon. Gentleman opposite with the CBI, it is surprising that they should put forward this proposal. The CBI had the opportunity on several occasions to express its views about this and other parts of the Bill. It thinks we have the balance about right.
I appreciate the concern of the hon. Gentleman who moved these amendments. There should be plenty of room on the commission for representatives of specialist, such as medical or educational, interests.
We are retracing the ground we covered in the Standing Committee. I do not think I ought to vary the view I expressed on that occasion.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) quoted the OFFICIAL REPORT, c. 118. If he will look at my other remarks he will see the reservations I expressed and the difficulties I saw about writing in any commitment to take on other groups and interests.
The provisions of the clause as at present drafted have been carefully drawn up to strike a proper balance of interests. It is right that industry should have the major voice in formulating the policies because industry is more directly concerned. These policies will affect them more directly than anyone else. Industry should have a voice that will be adequate in ensuring that the policies affecting them are effectively administered on a day-to-day basis.
Other interests should be directly represented on the commission. We have been vigorously lobbied by all kinds of interests. Even recognising what my hon. Friend says about the general nature of the Council of Engineering Institutions I am not sure that it is as general as he suggests or that it would welcome being described in such a way. There are other professional groupings. The chemical engineers might feel entitled to representation.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Tom Ellis: The council represents all kinds of engineers—including chemical, marine, mechanical and civil engineers.

Mr. Walker: There are other groupings of professional engineers outside the council.
I will not go over the reservations of coal mining interests. Some feel that the presence of a qualified mining engineer on the commission would ensure that the miners' interests and concerns were adequately looked after. But it is an odd assumption that the amendment would guarantee that the council's representative on the commission would be a mining engineer.
The Bill allows for interests other than the TUC and CBI to be represented, but the expert interests would probably play a more valuable part on the specialist committees. The amendments are counter to the spirit of the Bill and the Robens Report, which emphasised direct industrial participation in the new arrangements. I think we have the balance right. I will certainly take into account what the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler) said about the consultative process, but I should not commit myself as I have been asked to do.

Mr. Adam Butler: Is it intended to fill the commission with its maximum of nine members? Second, why is not a minimum of seven as reasonable as six? It would not upset the balance of the Bill.

Mr. Walker: I think that we have got the proportion right. I am prepared to consider increasing the minimum from six to seven, but it would be wrong to give a commitment. There would, of course, be no point in providing for nine places unless one intended to fill them, but we

should be able to be flexible in our timing.

Amendment negatived>

Clause 11

GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION AND THE EXECUTIVE

Amendments made: No. 41, in page 8, line 16, leave out from 'Part' to end of line 17.

No. 42, in page 8, line 18, leave out 'except as aforesaid'.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 43, in page 8, line 24, after 'research', insert:
'the publication of the results of research'.
The amendment follows up a promise which I gave in Standing Committee to meet the objective of an amendment put down by hon. Gentlemen opposite. As I said to the Committee, we wholeheartedly support the idea that the results of valuable research, whether carried out by the commission itself, or by others on its behalf, should be widely disseminated. And I agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is well worth making this aspect of the commission's duties abundantly clear, even if it is already covered more generally by its duty to keep people informed.
Clearly the commission should have some discretion as to whether or not it publishes the results of any particular piece of research. After all, not all research produces worthwhile results; and also there might be circumstances where whoever carried out research for the commission would themselves prefer to publish their own findings. I think this amendment allows the commission the necessary flexibility, whilst at the same time making quite clear what is expected of it in the general way.

Mr. Madel: We are grateful to the Minister for meeting us on this. Without going over old ground, this provision endorses the point that we have been making for the last few minutes, namely, that it is vital to have on the commission an expert who will be able to say what should be published and what will be published.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 8, line 32, at end insert
'provided with an information and advisory service and are'.
This is another amendment which fulfils one more promise that I gave to hon. Gentlemen opposite in Standing Committee. It is part of the overall strengthening of the Bill's provisions for making advice and information freely available.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted to amend the Bill to ensure that the commission would undoubtedly have the power to set up an information and advisory service. I have no doubt that as the Bill is drafted the commission has such powers in support of its general functions; and it has, of course, already got the duty to make arrangements for keeping people informed and advised upon health and safety matters.
But I think that there is advantage in making it clear that we expect this duty of the commission's to include the appropriate continuing arrangements for making information and advice available. In other words, it is not only a question of the commission's initiatives in publishing information, and so on; we also want it to establish facilities to which those in industry and elsewhere—employees, employers, universities, the general public—can turn for information and advice about hazards to health and safety, generally or in a particular instance, or about the requirements of the law, and so on. The commission should be a focal point for guidance on all health and safety matters, and we think that the amendment makes that intention clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 45, in page 8, line 35, leave out paragraph (d) and insert:
'(d) to submit from time to time to the authority having power to make regulations under any of the relevant statutory provisions such proposals as the Commission considers appropriate for the making of regulations under that power '—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Clause 13

OTHER POWERS OF THE COMMISSION

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 47, in page 10, line 4,

after 'Commission', insert 'or the Executive'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With this we are to take Amendments Nos. 48 and 49.

Mr. Walker: These amendments correct an anomaly in the commission's powers to make agency arrangements, as at present drafted. The amendments ensure that the commission can arrange for some other person or body to perform on its behalf functions which are specifically given to the executive by the Bill. Most importantly, these include making adequate arrangements for enforcement of the relevant statutory provisions.
The commission has the general and overall function of making arrangements to carry into effect the purposes of the Bill. The executive is its main operational arm for this purpose, and is accountable to the commission for what it does, even though it is given the particular function of securing enforcement. Because it has the overall responsibility, clearly the commission only should decide whether any of the executive's particular functions might in certain cases more appropriately be carried out by some other body. Only the commission, therefore, has the power to make an agency agreement.
Where the executive's enforcement functions are delegated in this way, it will still be responsible to the commission for the adequacy of enforcement work done by the agent. The commission cannot therefore delegate either its own or the executive's responsibilities under an agency agreement. But it can make use of convenient resources and facilities which are not within the executive. For instance, the executive's work for enforcing requirements concerning emissions to the air in Scotland can conveniently be carried out by the Scottish Industrial Pollution Inspectorate, the bulk of inspection on farms can conveniently be done by the Agricultural Department's field officers, and so on. Agency Agreements will be made to this effect.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 48, in page 10, line 5, at end insert
' or, as the case may be, of the Executive;'.

No. 49, in line 23, leave out 'to advise the Commission' and insert
'or committees of persons to provide the Commission with advice'.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Clause 14

POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO DIRECT INVESTIGATIONS AND INQUIRIES

Amendment made: No. 50, in page 11, line 16, leave out from beginning to end of line 18.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Clause 15

HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS

Amendment made: No. 52, in page 12, line 20, leave out from ' 50' to end of line 24 and insert
'regulations may be made under this section for any of the general purposes of this Part (and regulations so made are in this Part referred to as "health and safety regulations")'.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 53, in line 30, leave out from the' to end of line 32 and insert existing statutory provisions;'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we are to consider Amendments Nos. 54, 58, 84, 95, 110 and 114.

Mr. Walker: These are purely drafting amendments. They do not alter the substance of any provision. They are desirable because experience in Standing Committee and elsewhere has shown that people have not found it very easy to decipher the precise import of references to "the relevant statutory provisions" in various clauses of the Bill.
The relevant statutory provisions are all-important to Part I of the Bill; they are the enactments which are the basis of the new system of health and safety law, and which are to be administered by the new health and safety organisation. They comprise not only the existing enactments listed in Schedule 1, and their subordinate legislation; but also the provisions of Part I of the Bill, and of health and safety regulations made under the Bill.
Several clauses in the Bill treat differently the two categories of relevant statutory provision; that is, the existing provisions, and those in or to be made under the Bill. To ease drafting prob

lems, therefore, and to aid comprehension of what is meant in the context of each clause which mentions the relevant statutory provisions, these amendments describe the existing enactments and their subordinate instruments as "existing statutory provisions"—which makes for simplification in cases where it would otherwise be necessary to talk about, for example,
the relevant statutory provisions other than those contained in this Part or in health and safety regulations".
I hope that the House will agree that these amendments help to clarify the drafting of the Bill in this rather important respect of conveying precisely what legislation the Bill is referring to in each clause where "relevant statutory provisions" are mentioned.

Amendment agreed to.

Further amendment made: No. 54, in line 35, leave out from 'the' to end of line 36 and insert 'existing statutory provisions;'.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 55, in page 13, line 16, leave out subsection (6) and insert:
'(6) Health and Safety regulations—

(a) may provide for any specified defence to be available in proceedings for any offence under the relevant statutory provisions either generally or in specified circumstances;
(b) may exclude proceedings on indictment in relation to offences consisting of a contravention of a requirement or prohibition imposed by or under any of the existing statutory provisions, sections 2 to 9 or health and safety regulations;
(c) may restrict the punishments which can be imposed in respect of any such offence as is mentioned in paragraph (c) above'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we can consider Amendments Nos. 80, 83 and 97.

Mr. Walker: This revision of Clause 15(6) and its consequentials is largely consequential upon the deletion of Clause 41, but the opportunity has been taken to simplify the drafting of the subsection.
First, therefore, new paragraph (a) makes the amendment which I promised in Committee when we deleted Clause 41, which was the general defence of due diligence. This revised paragraph now enables the provision in regulations,


where necessary, of defences in respect of any of the relevant statutory provisions, including those in Part I.
Secondly, paragraphs (b) and (c) have been reworded in line with the drafting amendments that I moved earlier so as to refer here more simply to "existing statutory provisions" than to
relevant statutory provisions not contained in this Part".
Thirdly, the revised draft deletes the whole of paragraph (a) which states that health and safety regulations may make provision as to who is to comply with and who is to be guilty of an offence against health and safety regulations. This deletion is really consequential on the amendments which I moved in Committee to what was then Clause 14(6).
Regulations can state who is to comply with them. The old paragraph (a)(i) was put in to cover existing statutory provisions which the Committee agreed should not be done in such regulations and is no longer necessary. However, I am advised that the pruning has been a little too drastic and that a further amendment may be needed to the subsection to restore what used to be paragraph (a)(ii). This will make clear that regulations will be able to state who is to be guilty of an offence in the event of a contravention as, for example, in the Mines and Quarries Act. I hope that, if necessary, this further Amendment can be made in another place. I hope that that will meet with approval.

Mr. Michael Latham: The amendment is an improvement on the previous drafting of the Bill. However, I am still unhappy about the wording of the proposed paragraph (b) which gives the Minister power to exclude proceedings on indictment in relation to offences which deal, in effect, with the whole of the basic principle of the Bill in Clauses 2 to 9, which contain the general statement of intent about health and safety. I hope that this power will be used only in exceptional cases. We do not want exclusions of this kind. If a situation got to the stage of proceedings on indictment something very serious must have happened. I mentioned in Committee that this kind of dispensing power led to James II losing his throne and William of Orange coming to it. I hope that the Minister will not feel obliged to use it too often. Per

haps he may care to comment on that matter in reply.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 57, in page 14, line 14, at end insert:
'(8A) The power to make health and safety regulations shall be exercisable by the Secretary of State, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Secretary of State and that Minister acting jointly'.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Clause 16

APPROVAL OF CODES OF PRACTICE BY THE COMMISSION

Amendments made: No. 58, in page 14, line 27, leave out
'any of the relevant statutory provisions not contained in this Part'
and insert:
'health and safety regulations or of any of the existing statutory provisions'.

No. 59, in page 14, leave out lines 29 and 30.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Mr. Madel: I beg to move Amendment No. 60 in page 14, line 37, leave out from shall 'to consult' in line 39 and insert:
',before it approves a code of practice under subsection (1) above,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take the following: No. 61, in page 15, line 25, leave out
'with the consent of the Secretary of State".

No. 62, in page 15, line 27, leave out 'seeking his consent' and insert 'doing so'.

Mr. Madel: This amendment, which is bracketed with Amendments Nos. 61 and 62, refers to codes of practice and the powers of the commission and the requirement that it must consult the Secretary of State before issuing a code of practice.
The Bill is a direct result of the Robens Report. The two central recommendations of that report were that an independent commission should be established to regulate industrial safety and health, and that codes of practice should be used to ensure flexibility and that such codes should be made and approved by the commission.
We touched on this matter in Committee. One of our anxieties was that as the codes of practice have only quasi-legal status and very often have to be issued quickly in response to changed circumstances and to new processes in industry, it would slow down the work of the commission if it had to consult the Secretary of State before issuing a code of practice. We felt that the Secretary of State would be able to maintain within his Department a substantial department of experts to advise him on the codes as they were submitted by the commission. As we have been told repeatedly, the commission will have at its right and left hands a rich body of experts and committees which it can consult, expertise, and so on. We feel that inserting this requirement to consult the Secretary of State will slow down the work of the commission on this vital matter and will lead to duplication of effort, which will lead inevitably to delay.
On the question of parliamentary control and control of the commission by the Secretary of State, the Opposition feel that this matter is properly and adequately covered by Clause 12(b), which states that the Secretary of State may
give to the Commission at any time such directions as he thinks fit with respect to its functions".
That being so, and Clause 12(b) being the stop-gap and the safety net which would prevent the commission from doing something which may be considered unhelpful, we feel that in the interests of speed and efficiency of the commission the amendments should be accepted. We hope that the Government can meet us on this matter.

Mr. Harold Walker: I have a very lengthy prepared reply, but I do not think that hon. Members would relish my inflicting it upon the House at this time. I have considered the amendments very carefully. I divined the intention absolutely rightly. There may be some substance in the argument that has been presented.
Perhaps the House will permit me to give some further consideration to this matter, with a view possibly to introducing in another place some compromise

solution. What we have in mind is some kind of negative resolution procedure by the Secretary of State's consent; that is, that the commission should give the Secretary of State advance warning of what it is proposing and if within a given period—a month, for instance—he has not raised objections, the commission would be free to go ahead.
If we find it possible and practical to introduce an amendment of that kind, we would hope that it would commend itself to the House. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 18

AUTHORITIES RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move, Amendment No. 63, in page 16, line 34, after provisions ', insert
'or by regulations under subsection (2) below'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Amendment No. 67, in page 17, line 15, at end insert
'or by regulations under subsection (2) above'.

Amendment No. 69, in page 17, line 24, after 'provisions', insert
'or by regulations under subsection (2) above'.
and Amendment No. 70, in page 17, line 42, after 'provisions', insert
'or by regulations under subsection (2) above'.

Mr. Walker: These are purely drafting amendments—necessary because the regulations made under subsection (2), which may confer enforcement responsibilities on local authorities, are not relevant statutory provisions.
The first amendment ensures that, when such regulations are made and local authorities are made responsible for enforcement in certain circumstances, the executive is relieved of responsibility for the same matters.
The second amendment ensures that local authorities will have the duty of making adequate arrangements for enforcement when given the responsibility


by regulations under subsection (2), and ensures that they will act under the commission's guidance in carrying out their duties.
The third amendment merely rectifies the drafting to take account of the fact that regulations under subsection (2) are not relevant statutory provisions. The fourth amendment—to the definition of an "enforcing authority"—ensures that local authorities are "enforcing authorities" when given responsibilities by such regulations.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cryer: I beg to move Amendment No. 64, in page 16, line 35, at end insert—
'(2) Every enforcing authority shall be empowered, subject to the provisions of section 43 of this Act, to employ such legal advice and representation as they may consider necessary in order to discharge their functions properly'.
I shall be very brief, especially with the words of my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip still in my left ear. I move the amendment because I want to see spelled out that the enforcing authorities shall be empowered to obtain the advice and representation in courts of law of solicitors or counsel. The reason is simple. I described earlier tonight that there had been 70,000 eye injuries in five years and only 15 prosecutions. That is a lamentably small number of prosecutions. One of the reasons for it is unquestionably that the Factory Inspectorate does not like to go into court. One can hardly blame it. The inspectors might go into court once or twice a year. I know of a factory inspector who has been to court once in five years. These people cannot be expected to have the same degree of firmness and expertise as counsel who are experienced in representing people in court. It is a daunting experience for a factory inspector to have to go into court and perhaps present his case against the expertise of, say, a QC. There was a case recently where an inspector was up against an able and forceful QC, and his case was torn to shreds. In that case the factory inspectorate was faced with a bill for costs of £150.
What sort of background is that against which to ask a factory inspector to undertake a prosecution? Of course, he will drop out if he can. Given the opportunity most hon. Members, given the choice, might back down from the task

of making a maiden speech. However, we are elected to speak and we go ahead and make it. A factory inspector faces the equivalent time after time, and that may be why the inspectorate does not prosecute to the extent it perhaps should.
The amendment makes sure that the factory inspectorate or the enforcing authorities do not in future stand alone. They will be expected to employ expertise in the law as they would employ expertise in any other respect. At the moment they are compelled to go into the legal chamber naked. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment or at least give an assurance that when the Bill becomes law a circular will be sent out drawing attention to the general powers which I know are contained in the Bill saying that those powers can be used to obtain the services of a legal representative in the courts. If he cannot give that sort of assurance I ask him to accept the amendment so that the Factory Inspectorate can shrug off the amateurishness which has been forced upon it on too many occasions in the past.

Mr. Harold Walker: I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) an assurance on this point. The Bill provides the enforcing authorities with all the powers they need. Subsections (1), (4) and (5) place on the enforcing authorities the duty to make adequate arrangements for the enforcement of the relevant statutory provision for which they are responsible. These arrangements will clearly involve legal back-up facilities as well as inspection arrangements. If an authority is given the duty to do something it automatically is given the power to discharge that duty properly
In practice we envisage that the executive will have at its disposal a legal branch which will be able to assist not only the inspectors of the executive but those of other enforcement authorities, if need be. This branch can be strengthened if necessary by calling on outside legal advice.
I am satisfied that there are sufficient powers to ensure that adequate legal advice and representation is available when needed. I hope my hon. Friend is satisfied with that.

12 midnight

Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of a circular, when


the Bill becomes law, to guide those involved and to show the Government's determination that legal advice should be used?

Mr. Walker: That is the kind of thing to which we should give careful consideration.

Mr. Cryer: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 66, in page 17, line 10, leave out 'or agricultural health and safety regulations'.

No. 67, in page 17, line 15, at end insert:
'or by regulations under subsection (2) above'.

No. 68, in page 17, line 22, leave out 'the appropriate Agriculture Minister'.

No. 69, in page 17, line 24, after 'provisions', insert:
'or by regulations under subsection (2) above'.

No. 70, in page 17, line 42, after 'provisions', insert:
'or by regulations under subsection (2) above'.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Clause 19

APPOINTMENT OF INSPECTORS

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 71, in page 18, line 3, after 'persons', insert 'having suitable qualifications'.
Many people have commented that the new health and safety organisation will need more, and more highly qualified, inspectors. We think that, in this subsection which empowers enforcing authorities to appoint inspectors, we should make clear that quality is quite as important as quantity.
Mines inspectors already have to conform to the high standards laid down by the Mining Qualifications Board. It may be appropriate for enforcing authorities to draw up similar qualifying standards for other specialist inspectors, and we hope that this amendment will encourage them to do so.

Mr. Michael Latham: I should like to welcome this amendment, which arises from discussion in Committee, and say that one hopes that, while people with

suitable qualifications are employed, the people with the right qualifications will be sent to inspect the right things, and that if local authorities take over new duties they will take on the right people for the right jobs, for the reasons which I advanced in Committee but which I shall not repeat now.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28

RESTRICTIONS ON DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 72, in page 28, line 36, leave out from 'shall' to informed' in line 37, and insert
',in circumstances in which it is necessary to do so for the purpose of assisting in keeping persons (or the representatives of persons) employed at any premises adequately.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Amendments No. 73 in page 28, line 39, at end insert
'the following descriptions of information, that is to say—',
No. 74, in page 28, line 40, leave out 'any', and No. 75 in page 29, line 1, leave out 'such information as he thinks fit' and insert 'information'.

Mr. Walker: These amendments, again, meet a commitment given in Standing Committee. At that time, hon. Gentlemen opposite put down amendments which would have required inspectors to give all the information at their disposal to work-people. I explained that, while I welcomed and completely agreed with the spirit of these amendments, I could not accept that inspectors should be under an absolute and open-ended duty in these terms.
In practical terms this would be quite unrealistic—for instance, frequently work-people at a plant will know more about the process being carried on there than the inspector, and there is no point in requiring inspectors to tell grandmother how to suck eggs.
Furthermore, we hope that, by putting a duty on employers to keep other work-people informed, we shall have established that channel as its main source of information; the inspector's rôle will be to


supplement the information made available by employers.
Finally, we must be careful not to overburden inspectors to such an extent that they cannot get on with their main job of helping to prevent accidents. Therefore, as with all the other duties in the Bill concerning the availability of information, we need to build in some discretion as to what information must be made available.
I think that these amendments achieve that effect. The subsection as amended establishes that we expect inspectors to tell workpeople about the risks they run. But it also provided an objective for this duty—namely, that the information to be given must be necessary for the purpose of keeping workpeople adequately informed about risks to their health, safety and welfare. I think that these are very fair objectives, which have the effect of making the duty practical and workable. Also, it should be noted that the provision does not say that what is necessary is to be a matter for the inspector to decide; it is left open for discussion as to whether it is necessary to disclose some particular information. This, of course, makes the duty on the inspector much stronger.
I hope that the House will agree that these amendments are fair and realistic, and that, combined with the earlier amendment made in Standing Committee, they considerably strengthen the practical impact of this subsection.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 73, in page 28, line 39, at end insert
'the following descriptions of information, that is to say—'.

No. 74, in page 28, line 40, leave out 'any'.

No. 75, in page 29, line 1, leave out 'such information as he thinks fit' and insert information'.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Clause 29

GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF MINISTERS RESPONSIBLE FOR AGRICULTURE IN RELATION TO THE RELEVANT AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES

Amendment made: No. 76, in page 29, line 8, leave out Clause 29.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Clause 30

AGRICULTURAL HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS

Amendment made: No. 77, in page 29, line 27, leave out Clause 30.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Clause 31

ENFORCEMENT OF THE RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS IN CONNECTION WITH AGRICULTURE

Amendment made: No. 78, in page 31, line 1, leave out Clause 31.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Clause 32

APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF THIS PART IN CONNECTION WITH AGRICULTURE

Amendment made: No. 79, in page 31, line 6, leave out Clause 32.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Clause 33

OFFENCES

Amendments made: No. 80, in page 31, line 22, leave out from the beginning to 'it' in line 24.

No. 81, in page 31, line 28, leave out ' or agricultural health and safety regulations '.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 82, in page 32, line 16, leave out paragraph (k) and insert—
'(k) to make a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular or recklessly to make a statement which is so false where the statement is made—

(i) in purported compliance with a requirement to furnish any information imposed by or under any of the relevant statutory provisions; or
(ii) for the purpose of obtaining the issue of a document under any of the relevant statutory provisions to himself or another person;
This amendment covers a loophole. It adds to the list of offences the offence of making a false statement with the intention of obtaining a document—such as a licence or a certificate of competence—issued under the relevant statutory provisions. There is a similar provision in, for example, the Mines and Quarries Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 83, in page 32, line 41, leave out '(d)' and insert '(c)'.

No. 84, in page 33, line 3, leave out `relevant statutory provisions not contained in this Part' and insert `existing statutory provisions'.

No. 85, in page 33, line 17, leave out `or the appropriate Agriculture Minister'.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Clause 38

RESTRICTION ON INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS IN ENGLAND AND WALES.

Amendment made: No. 87, in page 36, line 20, leave out from 'by' to end of line 22 and insert 'an inspector, or'.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Clause 42

POWER OF COURT TO ORDER CAUSE OF OFFENCE TO BE REMEDIED OR, IN CERTAIN CASES, FORFEITURE.

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 90, in page 37, line 22, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
'(3) Where a person is ordered under subsection (1) above to remedy any matters, that person shall not be liable under any of the relevant statutory provisions in respect of those matters in so far as they continue during the time fixed by the order or any further time allowed under subsection (2) above'.
This is a drafting amendment, designed to make clearer the intended effect of the subsection. As at present drafted, the subsection does not deal adequately with the situation where a person may have committed several offences in connection with matters which he has been ordered by a court to put right. This redrafted subsection ensures that the person convicted is given temporary exemption from continuing liability for all those offences, for the period allowed by the court for the taking of remedial action.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 43

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 91, in page 38, line 17, leave out 'the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food'.

No. 92, in page 38, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 39 and insert:
'by the Secretary of State, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Secretary of State and that Minister acting jointly'—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Clause 44

APPEALS IN CONNECTION WITH LICENSING PROVISIONS IN THE RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS.

Amendments made: No. 93, in page 39, line 16, leave out 'agricultural licences and'.

No. 94, in page 40, line 19, leave out `an agricultural licence or' and insert 'a'.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Clause 47

CIVIL LIABILITY

Amendments made: No. 95, in page 44, line 17, leave out from 'the' to 'is' in line 20, and insert `existing statutory provisions'.

No. 96, in page 44, line 25, leave out
'or agricultural health and safety regulations'.

No. 97, in page 44, line 28, leave out '(c)' and insert '(a)'.

No. 98, in page 44, line 32, leave out
'or, as the case may be, agricultural health and safety regulations'.

No. 99, in page 44, line 43, leave out
'or, as the case may be, agricultural health and safety regulations'.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Clause 49

ADAPTATION OF ENACTMENTS TO METRIC UNITS

Amendments made: No. 100, in page 45, leave out line 30 and insert
'(1) Regulations made under this section may'.

No. 101, in page 45, line 44, leave out 'appropriate Minister' and insert 'authority making the regulations'.

No. 102, in page 46, line 4, leave out 'appropriate Minister' and insert 'authority making the regulations'.

No. 103, in page 46, line 5, leave out 'appropriate Minister' and insert 'authority making the regulations'.

No. 104, in page 46, line 7, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
'(4) The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by the Secretary of State, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Secretary of State and that Minister acting jointly'.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Clause 50

REGULATIONS UNDER RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 105, in page 46, line 19, leave out from beginning to end of line 30 and insert—
'(1) Where any power to make regulations under any of the relevant statutory provisions is exercisable by the Secretary of State, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or both of them acting jointly that power may be exercised either so as to give effect (with or without modifications) to proposals submitted by the Commission under section 11(2)(d) or independently of any such proposals; but the authority who is to exercise the power shall not exercise it independently of proposals from the Commission unless he has consulted the Commission and such other bodies as appear to him to be appropriate.
(2) Where the authority who is to exercise any such power as is mentioned in subsection (1) above proposes to exercise that power so as'.

No. 106, in page 46, line 34, leave out 'to the Secretary of State' and insert 'under section 11(2)(d)'.

No. 107, in page 47, line 6, leave out subsections (4) and (5).—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Clause 52

MEANING OF WORK AND AT WORK

Amendment made: No. 108, in page 47, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 48 and insert:
'by the Secretary of State, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Secretary of State and that Minister acting jointly'—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Clause 53

GENERAL INTERPRETATION OF PART I

Amendments made: No. 109, in page 48, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 42.

No. 110, in page 49, line 37, at end insert:
'"the existing statutory provisions" means the following provisions while and to the extent that they remain in force, namely the provisions of the Acts mentioned in Schedule 1 which are specified in the third column of that Schedule and of the regulations, orders or other instruments of a legislative character made or having effect under any provision so specified;'.

No. 111, page 49, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 44.

No. 112, in page 50, line 13, leave out from beginning to end of line 15.

No. 113, in page 51, line 5, leave out from beginning to end of line 12.

No. 114, in page 51, line 15, leave out from 'regulations' to end of line 23 and insert:
'and (b) the existing statutory provisions;'.

No. 115, in page 51, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 15 on page 52.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Clause 78

AMENDMENT OF FIRE PRECAUTIONS ACT 1971

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 116, in page 83, line 46, at end insert—
'(d) after subsection (10) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(10A) This Act shall apply to premises in England occupied by a Board of Governors of a teaching hospital (being a body for the time being specified in an order under section 15(1) of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973) as if they were premises occupied by the Crown."'.
This amendment amends Section 40 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971, which deals with the application of that Act to the Crown, to the same effect as respects hospitals in England as did the amendment which I moved in Committee, to insert paragraph (c) in the subsection as respects hospitals in Scotland. The


amendment is necessitated by the reorganisation of the National Health Services.
Section 40 of the Fire Precautions Act provides for premises occupied by the Crown to be treated in certain ways, including being certified by one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Fire Services rather than by the local fire authority, as would be the case for non-Crown premises. All National Health Service hospitals in England and Wales are regarded as being occupied by the Crown, with the exception of those hospitals which are administered by boards of governors, which are deemed to be owned, but not occupied, by the Crown. Such hospitals are, therefore, liable to different treatment from normal National Health Service hospitals under the Fire Precautions Act, which seems illogical. The amendment rectifies that anomaly.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 79

GENERAL POWER TO REPEAL OR MODIFY ACTS AND INSTRUMENTS

Amendment made: No. 117, in page 84, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 on page 85 and insert:
'by the Secretary of State, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Secretary of State and that Minister acting jointly; but the authority who is to exercise the power shall, before exercising it, consult such bodies as appear to him to be appropriate.
(5) in this section "the relevant statutory provisions" has the same meaning as in part I.'.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Clause 83

EXTENT, AND APPLICATION OF ACT

Amendment made: No. 118, in page 86, line 16, leave out 'or 30'.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Schedule 1

EXISTING ENACTMENTS WHICH ARE RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 119, in page 89, line 7, leave out '(2) to (5)'.
This is a small corrective amendment. Section 151(1) of the Quarries Act imposes duties on owners of abandoned mines, and mines that have been disused for a year or more, in respect of the fencing of disused shafts and outlets. Subsections (2) to (5) make provision for local authorities to enforce that requirement by dealing with such shafts and outlets as "statutory nuisances" under the Public Health Act 1936.
No change in these arrangements is contemplated. Since local authorities are responsible for ensuring that the duty on mine owners in Subsection (1) is complied with, and use procedures under another Act for dealing with non-compliance, it is simpler and more appropriate to designate the whole of Section 151 as not being a relevant statutory provision, and not something for which the commission and enforcing authorities under the Bill are responsible.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3

SUBJECT-MATTER OF HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 120, in page 93 line 27, leave out from 'under' to 'under' in line 29 and insert:
'a provision of this Act and of the Customs and Excise Act 1952, the Act'.
Again this is a drafting amendment. The purpose of paragraph 2(2) is to enable health and safety regulations which deal with the importation, loading or unloading of dangerous goods to state in the regulations either that a contravention is to be an offence under the Customs and Excise Act 1952 and to attract the penalties in that Act, or that a contravention is to be an offence under the Bill, and to attract the penalties in the Bill. This deals with the situation where there may be an overlap between offences under the two Acts.
The subparagraph is too inflexible as at present drafted. It says that regulations must specify the section under which offences are to be punished. But under the Customs and Excise Act contraventions may be tried under either of two sections, depending on the circumstances of the individual case. This amendment


preserves that position, by stating that health and safety regulations need only say under which Act an offence is to be punished.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4

MODIFICATIONS OF PART I IN CONNECTION WITH AGRICULTURE

Amendment made: No. 121, in page 96, line 17, leave out Schedule 4.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Schedule 7

AMENDMENTS OF BUILDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT 1959

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Millan): I beg to move amendment No. 122, in page 107, line 16, at end insert—
1A. In section 4 (relaxation of building standards regulations)—
(a) for subsection (5) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
(5) A direction under subsection (1)(b) above—

(a) shall, if it so provides, cease to have effect at the end of such period as may be specified in the direction;
(b) may be varied or revoked by a subsequent direction of the Secretary of State.
(5A) If at any time a direction under subsection (1)(b) above ceases to have effect by virtue of subsection (5)(a) above or is varied or revoked under subsection (5)(b) above, that fact shall not affect the continued operation of the direction (with any conditions specified therein) in any case in which before that time an application for a warrant in connection with the construction or change of use of a building, part or all of which is of the class to which the direction relates, was, in accordance with regulations made under section 2 of this Act, lodged with a buildings authority.";
(b) in subsections (6) and (7), after the words "subsection (1)(b)" there shall be inserted the words "or (5)(b)";
(c) after subsection (7) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
(7A) A person making an application under subsection (1)(b) above shall pay to the Secretary of State such fee as may be prescribed; and regulations made by virtue of this subsection may

prescribe different fees for different cases:
Provided that the Secretary of State may in any particular case remit the whole or part of any fee payable by virtue of this subsection.".
I suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we take with this amendment the remaining Government amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that is agreeable to the House, yes.

Mr. Millan: These amendments are all related to Schedule 7, which contains the provisions amending the Building (Scotland) Act 1959. The purpose of the provisions is to ensure that the Scottish building legislation are brought into line with those changes being made in the equivalent English legislation in Part III of the Bill which seem immediately desirable and useful in a Scottish context. It is intended that any wider changes that appear desirable in the Scottish legislation will be considered when the Scottish Building Acts are being reviewed and consolidated in a few years' time.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 123, in page 108, line 13, at end insert—
'Provided that the Secretary of State may in any particular case remit the whole or part of any fee payable by virtue of this subsection'.

No. 124, in page 108, line 19, leave out subsection (9).

No. 125, in page 109, line 18, at end insert—
'() in subsection (2), for the words "but only if, they are satisfied that" there shall be substituted the words "so far as they are able to ascertain after taking all reasonable steps in that behalf,".
() in subsection (3), for the words "be satisfied as mentioned in the last foregoing subsection" there shall be substituted the words "grant a certificate of completion".'

No. 126, in page 109, line 23, leave out be satisfied as mentioned in subsection (2) above' and insert `grant a certificate of completion'.

No. 127, in page 109, line 45, leave out from 'section' to 'shall' in line 47 and insert—
'a breach to which this section applies'.

No. 128, in page 110, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert
'in any action brought by virtue of this subsection such defence as may be prescribed shall be available.


(1A) This section applies to the following breaches—

(a) failure to comply with the terms or conditions of a warrant for the construction, demolition or change of use of a building or with any order under this Act relating to the construction of a building;
(b) contravention of any provision of the building operations regulations;
(c) constructing a building without a warrant otherwise than in accordance with the building standards regulations;
(d) changing the use of a building without a warrant where after the change of use the building does not conform to so much of the building standards regulations as become applicable, or apply more onerously, to the building by reason of the change of use'.

No. 129, in page 110, line 6, leave out 'breach of such a duty' and insert
'a breach to which this section applies'.

No. 130, in page 110, line 9, after 'alteration', insert demolition, repair, maintenance,'.

No. 131, in page 110, line 12, leave out from 'which' to 'or' in line 19 and insert
'a breach to which this section applies is actionable in a case to which subsection (1) above does not apply'.

No. 132, in page 110, line 20, leave out from 'this' to end of line 21 and insert 'section'.

No. 133, in page 110, line 27, leave out ' subsections (2A), (2B) and (2C) below 'and insert' the provisions of this section'.

No. 134, in page 110, line 31, leave out subsections (2A), (2B) and (2C) and insert:
(2A) The building standards regulations shall, except in so far as they otherwise prescribe, apply to a Crown building as they would apply if the building were not a Crown building.
(2B) A Crown building to which the building standards regulations apply shall be constructed in accordance with those regulations.
(2C) Any extension to or alteration of a Crown building to which the building standards regulations apply or would apply on the extension or alteration of the building shall not cause the building as extended or altered, as a direct result of the extension or, as the case may be, the alteration—

(a) if it conformed to the building standards regulations immediately before the date of commencement of the operations, to fail to conform to them; or
(b) if it failed to conform to the building standards regulations immediately before that date, to fail to conform to them to a

greater degree than that to which it failed to conform immediately before that date;
and any change of use of a Crown building shall not cause the building after the change of use to fail to conform to so much of the building standards regulations as will become applicable, or will apply more onerously, to the building by reason of the change of use.
(2D) Section 19A of this Act shall apply to a Crown building as it applies to a building other than a Crown building, but as if for subsection (1A) there were substituted the following subsection:—
(1A) A breach to which this section applies is a failure to comply with subsection (2B) or (2C) of section 26 of this Act or a contravention of any provision of the building operations regulations".
(2E) Without prejudice to any case to which proviso (a) to subsection (1) above is applicable, the Secretary of State shall have the like powers of dispensing with or relaxing the provisions of the building standards regulations in relation to a Crown building as he has under section 4(1) of this Act in relation to a building other than a Crown building; and subsections (3). (4), (5), (5A) and (9) of the said section 4 shall apply for the purposes of this section as if—

(a) in subsection (4), the words "or, as the case may be, the buildings authority" were omitted;
(b) in subsection (5A), for the words from "an application" to the end there were substituted the words "the construction or change of use of a Crown building was begun";
(c) in subsection (9), the words "or section 4A(3) of this Act" were omitted.
(2F) Without prejudice to any case to which the said proviso is applicable, in the application of section 4 B of this Act to a Crown building, subsection (11) shall have effect as if for the words from "an application" to the end there were substituted the words "the construction of a building, part or all of which is of the class to which the certificate relates, was begun".—[Mr. Millan.]

Order for Third Reading read—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent signified.]

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Madel: I am sure all my right hon. and hon. Friends would like to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Employment on so skilfully piloting the Bill to Third Reading. He has had a long and arduous task today. He has been here eight hours non-stop after spending many hours in Committee. If ever this placed is to be televised or broadcast, this is the sort of Bill that I think the public would like to see, and from which


they would gain something. I am sure that they would have been impressed by the skill and patience shown by the Minister.
We have only one real point of disagreement about the Bill, and that is on Clause 2. I am sorry that the Government could not meet us on it. We felt that they had spilled a little doctrinaire ink on an otherwise clean slate. However, we are grateful to them for meeting us on so many other amendments.
On Second Reading, mention was made of perhaps having a Standing Committee on Health and Safety at Work for the first two or three years of the commission's life. I hope that that will be done, or that the Government will at least consider it. We have emphasised time and again the number of accidents and injuries which occur at work, and 18th June 1974 is not a day too soon to give this Bill its Third Reading.
The Opposition have laid special emphasis on the work of the commission, the code of practice, the information services, and the research that it is going to do. Entrusted to the commission is a great power and a great opportunity for it to improve health and safety at work.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) is here, and no doubt, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will say something about mental illness at work. We hope that the commission will have power to issue regulations and codes of practice in regard to conditions of stress which can often lead to mental illness. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will confirm that.
We give a warm welcome to the Bill. We hope that it will lead to the greatly increased co-operation which is needed in places of work throughout the country. There is a glittering opportunity for employers and employees to use the Bill, through safety committees, to increase co-operation, communication and understanding between them. We are glad to have played a part in the passage of the Bill through the House. We wish it well in another place and hope that it will soon be on the statute book.

12.17 a.m.

Mr. Michael Latham: I associate myself strongly with the remarks of my

hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) about the Under-Secretary of State's conduct on the Bill. The hon. Gentleman was courtesy itself to all back benchers, and we greatly appreciate it.
Part III of the Bill has not been mentioned today, although it was dealt with in detail in Committee. I welcome it nevertheless. The only mention of building regulations was made by the Minister of State, Scottish Office, a few minutes ago in a commendably brief contribution, but the fact that there has been no debate on the building regulations today does not mean to say that Part III is without importance.
Those of us who have a relationship with these matters know that the proposals in the Bill are of immense importance. They are major new proposals, particularly those relating to thermal insulation, and perhaps the proposed increase in new values, and so on. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give a commitment to the fullest possible consultation with all the affected parties because these regulations are of the greatest practical importance to the building industry, in which I used to work.
Another matter which has not been discussed today is the question of the power under Clause 14(4)(c), in certain circumstances to hold a secret inquiry. It says that the regulations may require
any such inquiry to be held otherwise than in public where or to the extent that a Minister of the Crown so directs.
I hope that secret inquiries will be extremely rare and will take place only on matters of defence secrecy, and so on. Obviously, secret inquiries into health and safety matters are extremely undesirable and should take place only in the most limited circumstances.
I turn now to the question of the right of inquiry into regulations. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) moved a new clause in Committee on which an interesting debate took place. I am not satisfied with the power available to this House to scrutinise the regulations properly, and I hope that the suggestion that there should be an inquiry into certain regulations, which was suggested by the hon. Gentleman in Committee, will be carefully considered by the Secretary of State.
All the way through the Bill, which is an enabling Bill, many matters are left to be dealt with by regulation. There are wide powers for regulation, which means that many parts of the Bill were not able to be discussed fully in Committee. We do not know what the Minister has in mind. Often he has been prepared to say that he will consult industry as a whole.
I again stress the need for the greatest possible consultation with people who have practical experiences of the problems involved. Unlike some hon. Members who have spoken, I judge safety legislation not by the number of prosecutions that take place but by the reduction in accidents.

12.20 a.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: There is a feeling on both sides of the House that the sooner the Bill is passed on its way the better. As I have not attended the heavy labours of the day I feel a particular timidity in making a few remarks now, but I am profoundly disappointed by the Committee proceedings on the Bill. Some hon. Members may recall that on Second Reading I put forward the point that the Bill, though admirable as far as it went, was open to strong criticism, because while it looked at the problem of health and safety in industry from the physical point of view it totally ignored the matter of mental health at work.
I was given an assurance that it was an enabling Bill and that therefore we did not have to talk about mental health, and that that would apply equally with physical health or injury. There are reams and reams of HANSARD reports of the Committee proceedings, spelling out the implications in the Bill for physical injury and physical ill health in industry.
When the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) was speaking about the part the Opposition played in the Bill he said that they drew attention to the problems of accidents and injuries in industry. He retold the rôle the Opposition had played, but there was not a word on anything other than the physical aspects of health and safety in industry.
On Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was good enough to assure me that the Bill re

ferred equally to mental health and physical health matters, and that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would reply on this point. We know of the difficulties of fitting all the subjects involved into a concluding speech, but while my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary dealt admirably with building regulations, diseases caused by dust, alkali poisoning, explosives and nuclear installations, there was not one sentence from him about the psychological problems of industry, which it is agreed are of the greatest possible importance.
I charitably thought that at least my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would make amends in Committee and so I looked through the Committee reports. My hon. Friend spoke for column after column, and in seven sittings of the Standing Committee there were seven lines of the record devoted by him to the whole question of mental ill-health in industry.
What is meant by saying that the Bill applies equally to psychological and physical illnesses and injuries? This debate has not referred to this, Ministers' speeches have not referred to this, and the reports of the Standing Committee have not referred to this. The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) referred to it out of courtesy to myself.
The one reference to mental ill-health in the whole proceedings in Committee arose from the speech that I made on Second Reading. The one reference the Secretary of State made to the whole subject was the result of my contribution. My judgment is that if I had not been present during Second Reading there would have been no reference at all to the entire subject throughout the proceedings on the Bill.
I am told that this is an enabling Bill. If that is so, and mention of the duties of the commission with relation to mental ill-health is not necessary, why is it necessary to refer to the duties of the commission with relation to physical ill-health all the time? If it is an enabling Bill, surely it means that the general duties of employers in relation to physical illness need not be spelled out. But they are spelled out. The Bill is full of such things.
Clause 1 speaks of
controlling the keeping and use of explosives or highly flammable or otherwise


dangerous substances … controlling the emission into the atmosphere of noxious or offensive substances.
Clause 2 spells out the duties of employers and speaks of
handling, storage and transport of articles and substances … the provision and maintenance of means of access to and egress from".
All this is spelled out in terms of physical accident and physical injury—physical ill-health. There is not one word about the growing problem of mental ill-health. The Secretary of State on Second Reading spoke of the problems and the 23 million working days lost in industry through injuries at work. That is a terrible figure. But why did my right hon. Friend not mention the 38 million days lost through mental ill-health in industry? Why is he not aware of the modern problems of health and safety in industry? Why is it that the whole House seems to ignore this question?
The House pays lip service to it. In replying the Under-Secretary may again do so. He may say, "When we say ' health ' in the Bill we mean mental health." I recall that the Secretary of State, after a great deal of confabulation on the Front Bench during Second Reading, found a reference to mental conditions in the Bill. He read it out, and I had to confess that I had not noticed it. He said:
In Clause 53 on page 50 my hon. Friend will find that the definition of 'personal injury' includes
'any disease and any impairment of a person's physical or mental condition.'
I repeat that it is our intention that mental condition shall be taken into the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April 1974; Vol. 871, c. 1310.]
But this one reference to "mental"—the one reference in the entire Bill which the Secretary of State found—refers to physical illness and injury. If we read it carefully it is plain that that is so. Clause 53 refers to physical injury leading to a bad mental condition—not at all the subject I am discussing.
I am entitled to say that nowhere in the Bill, which spells out endlessly issues of physical illness, injury and accident, is mental ill-health mentioned. It is a great disappointment. I read the Committee proceedings. I very much wish that I had been able to join the Committee, because it might have been a very

much better Committee. Not having been a member, I feel obliged to say that I cannot now join in the general congratulations to Ministers.
The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary have shown an indifference to the problem. They could perfectly well have shown an interest. They could have shown that they were not unaware of the extent of this type of ill-health. They could have spoken of it, described the various kinds of neuroses, the various hardships, the hospitalisations that sometimes arise from a wrong psychological environment in industry. But there was not one mention, from beginning to end. I am afraid that they did not see the modern problem. They saw only the old traditional problems of safety and health in industry.
The Under-Secretary has been magnificent. No one would fault his speeches or handling of the Bill. But there is a deadly deficiency. I call Ministers to account for not understanding it.

12.31 a.m.

Mr. Money: Despite the strength and sincerity of the case deployed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), the House will be glad that the Bill has reached this stage. I am immensely grateful to the Under-Secretary for the patience, skill and good humour with which he has piloted it through.
I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has accepted a new Clause 2—a matter with regard to the Companies Act which I put to him on Second Reading. I regret I was not here, for inevitable reasons, when the clause was moved. I am glad that it has been accepted by the House.
Clauses 33 and 42 and the other clauses dealing with offences will only be as strong as magistrates' courts make them. I know how much disappointment there is, and how pointless the factory inspectors felt themselves to be in the past, when cases of gravity were brought—just as with cases of cruelty to children and animals or statutory offences of that type—and were dealt with by the courts with almost minimum sentences for serious and grave prosecutions. I hope that the courts will take seriously the fact that they have powers under the measure.
The Bill is a remarkable achievement. It is something that we have left for too long. When it becomes an Act it will put on paper something which is lived out in industry every day of the week. The accident figures are still far too high. The fatalities are far too many. When it becomes an Act, whatever it can do to prevent accidents, the measure will not in itself be a placebo. It must not allow us to rest on our laurels in any sense. Only on the shop floor, and on day-to-day care, can this problem and the human misery it causes be met.

12.33 a.m.

Mr. Tyler: I join in congratulating the Under-Secretary on his formidable rôle in producing this Bill and getting it to this stage. In recent controversies I described him as the architect of the Bill. I hope he will take that not as an insult but as a compliment.
On Part III of the Bill, I have advised the RIBA on various aspects of parliamentary proceedings and continue to give it such advice. On this point I do not speak on behalf of the architects. If I am critical of them I hope it will not result in severing of our ties.
Part I of the Bill was dominated by the Flixborough tragedy. It is a tragic coincidence that this Bill in its Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading, has been dominated not only by Flixborough; Part III, and the way in which Part III will work itself out by regulation, must be dominated by the Summerland disaster in the Isle of Man, and the present controversy over the collapse of school buildings in Britain.
I should like to read two short quotations which will underline the importance of Part III and Schedule 5, and the importance of this as an enabling Bill, giving an opportunity to look afresh at the whole framework of building regulations.
Dealing with Summerland, the leader in the Architects Journal on 29th May said:
In fact they died of muddle. The commission wisely says that there are no villians: that the disaster was the result of a series of human errors and inadequacies".
It went on to say that:
There was a quite unusual degree of bureaucratic bungling by Douglas Corpor

ation which was both client and buildings authority and never seemed to be able to disentangle its two rôles properly".
This matter should concern us as well as the Isle of Man authorities. It is difficult for an employee to be sure that his interpretation of building regulations or a waiver is right when he knows that his employer may benefit from his actions.
As for the schools which have been declared unsafe recently, there is a need under the Bill to ensure that the framework for building regulations will be able to keep one step ahead of technical and design development. The Times Educational Supplement of 7th June said, that
the DES and the Department of the Environment say there is now ' greater cause for concern' than was at first thought.
Authorities have been asked to inspect all buildings using high alumina cement concrete and either to take them out of use or to make temporary safeguards. There are at least 180 buildings—more than 100 of them educational—but both departments refuse to name them. A comment that lists of suspect buildings supplied by roof beam manufacturers are by no means exhaustive' undoubtedly means that the figure of 180 should be much higher,
Part III and Schedule 5 are quite as important as Part I. Flixborough reminded us how important some parts of the Bill will be, but Summerland and the school buildings should remind us that the Bill should be a major step forward in the provision of better and more up-to-date building regulations, so that in future we shall be spared the disasters and potential disasters of recent months.

12.38 a.m.

Mr. Adam Butler: We thought that a Third Reading debate was necessary to review the Bill and stress its importance. I add my congratulations to the Minister of State on the way in which he has handled the Bill. If we have clashed occasionally I am sure that no love has been lost between us. Generally, we have proceeded with great reasonableness, sweetness and expedition.
I am glad to be here to help put the Bill to bed. It has had a mixed parentage. There were one or two protoypes even before the previous administration's Bill. The Robens Committee, whose members might be called the Bill's godparents, did the job we asked of it with thoroughness. Unlike some Bills, this one has drawn heavily on the recommendations of a committee, and we owe it a vote of thanks.
I spoke in Committee, but not in today's debate, about agriculture, and I must, without any further comment, express reservations about the position of agriculture following today's debate, during which the Government's position was in such contrast to that which we understood them to hold in Committee. If I may say it quietly to the Minister, in Committee the Opposition, apart from one back bencher, were firmly on the side of the Bill, and it is wrong to suggest that we were otherwise placed.
On the question of mental health, the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) may have a point of criticism when he says that nearly all the speeches in Committee failed to make reference to mental health. I am certain that when the Minister replies to the debate he will have something to say about that. As far as I am aware, the commission will have powers to make regulations in respect of mental damage resulting from stress, and so on, at work, in the same way as it will in regard to physical strains, but we shall wait to hear what the Minister says.
Clause 2 has been the matter of contention between us, largely because it is the only clause that has been changed substantially from the corresponding clause in the previous Government's Bill. A lot of heat and feeling has been generated on this issue—really because although the Opposition happen to share the belief of hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches about the importance of the trade union movement and the necessity for trade unions within industry, we do not share their apparent view about the monopoly position of trade unions.
The fact is that in health and safety at work matters the interests of employers, managements, workers and trade unions are common, and therefore one must hope that, regardless of what the legislation says, there will be a close working together and a still further increase in the participation that exists now.
The Bill is of immense importance, and I think that the House can take great pride in doing its part in putting it on to the statute book.

12.43 a.m.

Mr. Cryer: Although I have been one of the principal critics of the Bill, the Under-Secretary of State has been cour

teous to me in all my approaches to him and in his handling of the arguments that I have advanced.
I do not deny that the Bill has some virtues, but the Division tonight indicated the seriousness of my attitude and that of those who voted with me. We shall ensure that the Bill is under constant scrutiny, and I maintain that questions and comments raised by myself and those who take a like view were not answered.
The Bill pacifies the employer far too much. The codes of practice are of minor importance. The accident rate, which is far too high, will diminish only if existing absolute standards are at least retained, and, hopefully, improved. We want the commission and the executive to ensure that the rate of prosecutions of negligent employers is pursued as relentlessly and as vigorously as the Conservative Government hounded council tenants under the Housing Finance Act, or as they hounded the trade unions under the Industrial Relations Act. It is worth thinking about how detailed and comprehensive were those two items of legislation and how, as I understand it, in Committee on the Housing Finance Bill any loophole was vigorously and quickly stopped up.
It is important that factory inspectors should have all legal skills on call, so that they can pursue prosecutions in court. I should have liked to see much more spelled out in the Bill, so that everything is on paper and can be referred to.
I shall keep a careful scrutiny on the actions of the Secretary of State for Employment and of other Ministers in the Department to see how the Bill is put into effect, and to ensure that it is done vigorously.
It is not people inside this House who are important; it is those outside it. I am convinced that the trade union and Labour movements will also keep a scrutiny on the Bill to ensure that it is put into practice effectively.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. David Watkins: I want to add my warm congratulations to those expressed already to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who, during these very protracted proceedings today, has put in a tremendous performance. As those who served on the Standing Committee know, he put in an equal performance in Committee. He has virtually carried the Bill


on his shoulders throughout and, notwithstanding the strains and stresses that must have pressed him, throughout he has been courteous in dealing with the amendments and points of view of hon. Members on both sides—and I speak as one who has played some part in that.
There is a very long history of legislation to reduce the sickening toll of death, disease and injury in industry. I believe that this Bill marks an important milestone on the long road which that history has followed. It is not unfair to say that it is the strongest Bill ever to have been introduced into the House on industrial health and safety, and it consolidates many previous enactments. Most important of all, it contains a new feature, in the shape of the Health and Safety Commission, providing a powerful and dynamic overall control not only to enforce legislation but constantly to examine and review safety in the light of developing trends.
The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler) rightly pointed out that there had been several attempts before we arrived at this Bill. It was as long ago as 1967 that Mr. Ray Gunter, as Minister of Labour, first made the announcement in this House which started us along the road to producing this Bill. It is not unfair to point out that during that period several thousand people have been killed in the course of their employment, and that more than 5 million have suffered injury. Even as we debate the Third Reading, there are about 250,000 people in the country, as there always are at any moment, receiving industrial injuries disablement benefit, and about 30,000 widows who are widows because their husbands have been killed earning their living. That is the urgency of what this House is attempting to come to terms with and to do something about in the Bill.
I wish the Bill rapid progress in the other place, where I hope that something will be done about the matter to which I referred in Amendment No. 20 and about which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave certain firm assurances. I hope that the measure will be the law of the land before this House rises for the Summer Recess.

12.48 a.m.

Mr. Harold Walker: I am grateful for both the warmth of my reception and the generous remarks which have been addressed to me. I am sure that all those hon. Members who worked so hard to bring the Bill to this point will not mind if I reciprocate the remarks of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) and congratulate him, on what has been the first occasion on which he has had sustained Front Bench responsibility, on the way that he has handled that responsibility throughout our proceedings.
I understand the strength of feeling that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) expressed and the fears lying behind that feeling.
Clearly, there were many specific matters with which we could not deal. My hon. Friend referred to the dramatic and important statistics about the loss of production time due to mental illness or disorder. Perhaps I may respond by saying that the loss of production time due to bronchitis is much more severe. But we did not discuss bronchitis, as we did not discuss pneumoconiosis and many other industrial diseases. I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that in these proceedings we could not hope to discuss all the various causes of illness at work.
I share my hon. Friend's concern about the impact of mental illness not only on production but on the social life of those who are afflicted. The Bill in its definition of personal injury, refers to mental conditions. The regulation-making provisions of Schedule 3, paragraph 8, require
the making of arrangements for securing the health of persons at work or other persons, including arrangements for medical examinations and health surveys.
The reference to "health" means not only physical but mental health.
A number of other points were made, but I am sure that hon. Members will not expect me to respond to them now. However, I undertake to make a careful study of what has been said in the debate.
I think it fitting that we should have a brief benedictory debate before despatching this historic measure to another place. While this is a moment of some personal satisfaction for me, it would be inappropriate for me to speak in a spirit of self-congratulation.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) said, we are near the fulfilment of the labours of successive Ministers from both sides of the House. It would be wrong not to put on record how much the Bill owes to their efforts and to those whose work rarely receives the acknowledgement that it deserves—the officials of my Department, some of whom have lived with the Bill since the Robens Committee was appointed in 1970.
I think that the Bill of which we are now taking our leave is a healthier and stronger measure than that which the House welcomed on 3rd April. Much of the credit for this must go to the members of the Standing Committee. The Committee was remarkably well informed—better so than any in my experience—and its work was carried out in a spirit of co-operation and good will. If, as has been rightly remarked, political considerations intervened, they did so but briefly and in an atmosphere of good humour. Above all, the Committee always sought to be constructive and I am grateful to its members.
I said earlier that this is an historic measure. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, on Second Reading, said that it was the most important measure of its kind to be introduced into the House. I am sure that he is right and that his view is widely shared.
It is a matter of deep regret to me that the world at large showed little awareness of the existence of the Bill or its significance until disaster shattered the life of a happy and peaceful little Lincolnshire community. The horror of Flixborough has, I believe, seared into everyone an awareness of the dangers with which we live and work. I hope and believe that it has completely scourged any complacency about health and safety at work. It may be grim consolation to the tragically bereaved families, but I believe that there is a determination that such tragedy must never be repeated.
I believe that the Bill will make a major contribution to the realisation of that aim. We must ensure that when Parliament finishes its work those who take up the task of implementing the provisions of the Bill do so in the sense of

turning our aims into reality both in fact and in spirit.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

12.54 a.m.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Robert Sheldon): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The broad purpose of the Bill is to make changes in some of the existing restrictions on the number and pattern of salaries payable to the holders of ministerial office. The Bill makes no change in the present levels of ministerial salaries, but makes changes in the eligibility of particular office holders for these. I should like to start with the general background and go on to the particular reasons for the urgency of the Bill, and then say something about its effects.
The Bill makes a number of amendments to the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1972. It is that Act which at present governs the payment of ministerial salaries. The 1972 Act embodied the recommendations of the first report of the Top Salaries Review Body—which was under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Boyle—in respect of Ministers of the Crown and made a number of changes in the pattern of ministerial offices at the same time. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) made clear when he introduced that Bill in 1972 that the pattern and distribution of ministerial offices for which it provided was intended to match the pattern of Government Departments which resulted from the reorganisation in the autumn of 1970 under the previous administration. That reorganisation was based on the merging of a number of existing Departments which led to fewer and larger Departments.
Since the 1972 Act there have been changes in the pattern of Departments, as a result of which it is now proving unduly restrictive. First, later in 1972 events in Northern Ireland led to the


establishment of a separate Northern Ireland Office. Secondly, under the previous administration a Department of Energy was created. Under the present administration, the Departments of Industry and Trade, and the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, have been established. Thus, in the place of the single Department of Trade and Industry which existed at the end of last year we now have four separate Departments. In addition, it is intended to arrange for the Minister of Overseas Development to be in charge of a separate Department. At present, the Overseas Development Administration is, in formal terms, a part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
These changes, since the 1972 Act, in the departmental pattern for which those provisions were designed, have made it difficult to operate within the limitations which the Act introduced. As hon. Members will be aware, the present restrictions have meant that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has not been receiving a salary since his appointment. The strains created by the restrictions in the framework of the 1972 Act are now made worse by the collapse of the Northern Ireland Executive and the need, in consequence, to augment the ministerial team in the Northern Ireland Office. This need was recognised by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in his speech in the House on 4th June. The immediate and urgent purpose of this legislation is to enable that to be done.
As a consequence, there will be one or two additional appointments in Northern Ireland which the Government intend to make as soon as the Bill becomes law. This legislation will also make it possible for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to receive the salary to which he is properly entitled.
Apart from the changes in the numerical limits laid down in the 1972 Act the Bill makes a number of changes in the pattern of salaries which are payable and contains provisions related to the establishment of a separate Department to deal with overseas aid and development, together with other ancillary provisions which can conveniently be included in the same short Bill.
It may be helpful if I describe the effects of the various provisions contained in the Bill. The changes in the present pattern of ministerial salaries are effected by Clause 1, which amends Schedule 1 to the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1972. There are three main changes. The first concerns the offices of Minister of State and Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury—better known to us as the Chief Whip but who also used to be known as the Patronge Secretary, although, as my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has informed me on many occasions, the patronage which he has to distribute is not that which his forebears used to have. But the Chief Whip among others will now be allowed to take his part, if required, in the new group of ministerial offices which are to be paid at the higher rate of £13,000, so long as the holder is a member of the Cabinet. That is a crucial distinction. As long as the person is a member of the Cabinet he can be paid that salary.

Mr. Michael English: The Chief Whip has never been a member of the Cabinet since 1715. I take it that my hon. Friend means that a change is now to take place.

Mr. Sheldon: Not at all. The Chief Whip attends the Cabinet as is naturally required by virtue of his office, but he is not actually a member of the Cabinet. If the Government, now or in the future, were to decide that the Chief Whip should be a member of the Cabinet, joining in the deliberations and taking responsibility for the decisions of the Cabinet as much as any other member of it, he would be paid £13,000. At present the holder of one of these offices, even though a member of the Cabinet, only could be paid the lower level salary.
Secondly, a new general category of ministerial office is established. At present the office of Secretary of State can be and is held by more than one ministerial head of Department. It is therefore possible to pay a Cabinet-level salary to a Minister appointed to take charge of a newly-created Department. The same flexibility does not exist in relation to the payment of lower-level salary to a Minister who is not in the


Cabinet but who is appointed to take charge of a new Department. The new provision remedies that and avoids the need to make separate provision in primary legislation in cases of this kind. This is the provision which will cover the salary of the Minister of Overseas Development as a head of a separate Department.
Thirdly, the amendments in Clause 1 ease the restraints governing the number of Ministers who can be paid at various salary levels. The number of Part I salaries which may be paid is increased from 19 to 21. The number of Part I and Part II salaries taken together will be increased from 46 to 50. In place of the present separate limit on the number of Parliamentary Secretary salaries paid under Part IV of the 1972 Act a new overall limit of 83 is established for Part I, Part II and Part IV Parliamentary Secretary salaries taken together. This limit of 83 includes all the Part I, Part II and Part IV Parliamentary Secretary salaries taken together. This means that we can increase the number of Parliamentary Secretaries to take the place of some of those Minister of State salaries if that is required.
This limit of 83 represents an increase of seven over the effective overall figure of 76 under the 1972 Act. This new arrangement will make it possible to pay more than 33 Parliamentary Secretary salaries if the full complement of senior appointments is not filled and this reflects the methods already employed in the 1972 Act to control the number of Part II salaries.
The changes that we propose should be made to the numerical limits of Ministerial salaries will increase by seven the ministerial salaries which may be paid under the 1972 Act. But the number of salaries which would be payable as a result of the Bill would be one less than the number which was payable at the time of the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act 1965. To take account of the increase we propose should be made in the number of salaries payable under the 1972 Act, it woqld be right to raise by Clause 2 the limit in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1947 on the number of Ministers, paid or unpaid, entitled to sit and vote in the House of Commons.
The new category of Ministers outside the Cabinet in charge of Departments introduced in Clause 1 is brought within the scope of the 1957 Act by Clause 3(1). Clause 3(2) applies to the new category of Ministers the provisions set out in Schedule 1 to the Ministers of the Crown Act 1964. Among other things these provisions authorise a Minister to make necessary arrangements for the maintenance of his department.
There are other general provisions in Clause 4(2) and Schedule 2 which should help to facilitate future transfers of functions between Government Departments which are headed by Secretaries of State. This will fill a gap in present law. These are the more general provisions which the Bill contains.
In addition, the later provisions of Clause 3 are related to the re-establishment of a separate Ministry of Overseas Development. This Ministry was established by the previous Labour Government in 1964 but by 1970 was merged by the previous administration with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. When the present administration took office it was announced that it was intended to reverse this change. Since then my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has delegated to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development his administrative responsibilities in this field. The provisions in the Bill deal with the substantive transfer to the Minister of these responsibilities. It may be necessary for additional functions to be transferred at a later stage by order under the Ministers of the Crown (Transfers of Functions) Act 1946 but this would simply constitute a tidying up measure. I am sure my right hon. and hon. Friends will welcome the provisions to assist in the re-establishment of a separate Ministry of Overseas Development.
This is a short but necessary Bill. The greater flexibility which it will provide in relation to the structure of ministerial offices should be of help not only to this but to future administrations in making the necessary dispositions of their ministerial forces. The Bill increases the number of ministerial salaries payable, but in doing so does no more than return to the position of some years ago, and


reasonably so in the light of changes in the pattern of Departments which have taken place since the 1972 Act.

1.7 a.m.

Sir Keith Joseph: The House will thank the hon. Gentleman for the thorough way in which he has presented the Bill. As one who has on similar occasions in the past been fluent, I should also like to congratulate him on the fluency of his explanation.
I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has met all the questions which seem, from the ominous gathering of numbers at this time of night, to be pending, but our 18th century predecessors who would have turned out in enormous numbers, but not at the same time of night, to deal with this enormous increase in the payroll vote of Ministers, would have been gratified by the attendance.
The official Opposition do not seek to object to the Bill. Some parts of the Bill flow from arrangements made during the previous Government and others from suggestions made, because of the Irish situation, by the Leader of the Opposition
We therefore wish to make no objections or inquiries about this Bill, although we are aware that others may be doing so.

1.8 a.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: My hon. Friend will be glad to learn that I intend to say only a few words, but I do not think that a Bill of this kind ought to pass on the nod.
I welcome first the legalisation of the independence of the Ministry of Overseas Development, which was one of the commitments we undertook considerably before the last election. I am only sorry that it had to be done only in practice and not legally, until now.
On the main part of the Bill, I want first to take the opportunity to sweep away a lot of the flummery and the old-fashioned titles which still attach to some Ministers and quasi-Ministers.
It does not make sense, in this day and age, for us to refer to Ministers or quasi Ministers—by whom I mean Whips—as "Captain of the Honourable Corps of

Gentleman at Arms" or "Captain of the Queen's Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard", or "Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household"—where the very word has to be spelt wrongly—or to "Vice-Chamberlain" of the Household. There is no need for this nonsense. People do not understand it.
Every time such a measure comes before the House we should not only make the essential changes but should get rid of the flummery which confuses all our doings. I saw the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) shaking his head, but now he has started nodding it. He seemed to be disagreeing with me. I hope that more and more hon. Members who have spent a short time in this honourable House will cooperate in getting rid of such nonsense as these titles, the hat under the chair of the Serjeant at Arms, and other such irrelevances in an institution which is supposed to be a place of work and not a circus.
On the more substantial point, there could also have been some tidying up of the different rates of salary for quasi-Ministers at the lower level. I do not see that we can justify a Captain of the Queen's Bodyguard of the Yeoman of the Guard receiving £5,000 a year whilst a Lord in Waiting receives £4,000. I believe that very few gradations of seniority are required among Ministers. At present there are probably at least half a dozen levels, and they could have been simplified down to two or three.
Finally, and most seriously, the House should look very carefully at what has been in recent years the growing gap between the remuneration of private Members and the remuneration of Minissters. That gap is extremely serious for parliamentary democracy. It is increasingly anomalous as the job of a backbench Member demands full-time work. If a private Member is doing his work, he should be spending most of his time in the House or on parliamentary duties. If he is, there ceases to be much justification for paying Ministers of any category much more than is paid to Members of the House. I am told that the gap between the remuneration of a private Member and that of Cabinet Ministers is greater than in many other countries.
The reason for the desirability of the practice is obvious. It is undesirable in


a parliamentary democracy that a Minister should be reluctant to resign his office. The greater the gap between the pay of a private Member and that of a Minister, the more reluctant he will be to resign. I believe that there is no posibility in the Bill of making any corrective step against the trend of recent years, but the House should watch the matter. If we are not careful, it will become almost unknown for Ministers to resign office and revert to the back benches. We should be moving in a direction which encourages that, rather than the reverse.

1.14 a.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: I do not want to keep the House too long at this time of night, particularly as I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. West) has certain questions he wants to put regarding the proposal about the increase in the number of Ministers required for the Northern Ireland Office.
In general, on the main purpose of the Bill, which is to increase the number of Ministers, I am inclined to be eighteenth-century in my attitude. The 1957 Act, which is referred to in Clause 2, laid down the limit not at 91 but at 70. Since then we have seen an increase in the number of Members who are entitled to be on the payroll of the executive. That is a bad general principle, affecting the independence of Parliament as against the executive.
We should be careful about increasing the limit and we should be equally careful in inquiring as to how long the limit shall remain increased. We must be clear whether this is intended to be a temporary measure and whether, after the Northern Ireland emergency situation is over and when a proper constitution has been worked out, we shall return to the limit that we are now extending.
Reference has been made to the difference in salaries. Not only is there a salary gap, which is not good for Parliament; it is not good for Parliament as a general principle to increase the number of Members on the payroll.
That having been said, I turn to the question of the Northern Ireland Office. I understand that it is the Government's intention, if they are empowered by this measure, to increase the number of

Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office by two. I have no quarrel with that as a general proposition. If Northern Ireland is to be properly administered it cannot be done by the Secretary of State and by one Minister of State alone. I think that the Secretary of State requires at least two extra Ministers. I have heard the names mentioned of two Labour hon. Members as possible Ministers. If they be so appointed, they would start out, at any rate, with our good will. We should wish them well in the task of administration. We would give them that good will because they would have a job primarily of administration.
The Ministers who will be appointed as a result of this measure will not be the makers of the Government's policy towards Northern Ireland. They will be appointed for a job of administration. That will be a difficult job, and I know my right hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone will refer to some of the tasks that they may have. It will be a difficult job, and I assure them that in the task of setting about good administration they will have our good will and co-operation.
Before we allow the limit on the number of Members who may be in the Government's payroll to be increased, I ask the Minister whether any term will be set. It cannot be imagined that it will be the Government's will, in the light of all that has happened in Northern Ireland, to continue direct rule for any length of time. I presume, therefore, that the Government have something in mind to replace the present Northern Ireland Constitution Act.
What will be put in the place of the Executive, which has now collapsed and disappeared? I ask the Government to give us some idea of the timing. We are talking about appointing two new Ministers to the Northern Ireland Office, but we have not heard anything recently from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Since our last debate he appears to have sunk without trace. Something soon must be said because not only will Ulster become impatient but so will the House.
We cannot leave things in a vacuum for very long. When shall we hear from the Government about their future policy? It is plain to me and it is plain to all those who represent Northern Ireland that


the Government cannot proceed to compose a new constitution for Northern Ireland without having elections to the present Northern Ireland Assembly. If the Minister can give us some idea when the Government will be able to tell us this, we shall say, "Good luck" to these new appointments. It is necessary in the meantime that the Northern Ireland Office should have sufficient Ministers to carry on business, but we are entitled to ask how long this process is to take. How long do the Government see this Northern Ireland set-up lasting?
Very important decisions have to be made. As we said in the debate, an awful state of affairs exists in Northern Ireland. The events of early this week showed that they are not likely to be confined to Ireland if they are permitted to go on for very much longer. Today, there have been no less than five serious bomb explosions in Ulster. One bomb was of 900 lbs.—a pretty substantial size. In the light of all this, I say to the Government that time is not on our side. I see the Patronage Secretary taking the point.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish): I understand it.

Captain Orr: I was about to correct myself. I thought at first that the right hon. Gentleman was agreeing with me, but at least he understands me. As I was saying, time is not on our side in Ulster, and the Government will have to make up their minds quickly what the policy is to be. The right thing to do is to have elections for the Assembly, or at least to set the date for them. In the light of that, I should be prepared to allow the Bill to go forward on the understanding that it is temporary in terms of the Northern Ireland Office. I hope that we shall hear something about the time scale envisaged.

1.24 a.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I wish to follow exactly the questions asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr): My qualms are simply based on the realities of the situation of seeming to impose English Ministers for more than a given length of time on Northern Ireland. I put it to my right hon. and hon. Friends from Scotland what would be the position if

the Scottish Office were to be manned entirely from Ministers whose constituencies were in England. We can all imagine what kind of resentments that would evoke.
It is the feeling of resentment in Northern Ireland that I want to refer to in asking to what extent there will be a time limit on this arrangement. In a sense, if there is to be an unlimited time, I suggest that the whole exercise really is a kind of "Mission Impossible."
Frankly, I do not think that this House of Commons has understood the burning kind of resentment that now exists in Ulster, rightly or wrongly, against things Westminster, against things Scottish and against things English. Any solution which looks like being imposed from here is almost doomed from the start.
I have good will to whoever is appointed, but with the best will in the world they ought to be asked whether it is right that they should have to operate from offices in Stormont Castle.
One can go to Northern Ireland and see the resentment which is bred by the physical circumstances of that remote Stormont, in which events take place. I can give an example in this regard. It is striking, when one goes to Ulster, to detect the feeling among people there that they got the British Parliament recalled from recess. This seemed to be regarded not as a means to an end but as an end in itself. Triumph! People there talk about having brought the Leader of the Opposition back early from his visit to China. They say, "We brought Ted Heath back early". Success! They also feel that they brought a hard-working Prime Minister back early from a well-earned holiday in the Scilly Isles. Victory!

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. I do not wish to interfere unduly with the hon. Gentleman's theme, but I think it would be more appropriate for him to confine his remarks to the contents of the Bill, rather than the more political overtones involved.

Mr. Dalyell: This is simply a judgment as to the likely success of my hon. Friends who are appointed. What I have been describing is the kind of attitude they will encounter. The Bill is seen as a foistering of English Ministers


on the Irish situation—and this is after all the events of the past five years. If I may say so with respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, your intervention reveals in a sense the way that many of us have perhaps not understood the depth of feeling in Northern Ireland.
To go to the women's prison in Armagh, as I did with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond), and to be told by a spokeswoman of the provisional IRA: "If Mr. Paisley was the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland that would suit us", was absolutely incredible to a British politician. That was the first thing the spokeswoman said to us—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the Chair in this matter. I was trying to ensure that the hon. Gentleman relates his remarks to what is contained in the Bill, which deals with the appointment of certain additional Ministers. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wishes to broaden the scope of the discussion, but it has to be fairly narrow in context.

Mr. Dalyell: I did not want to broaden the scope of the discussion or parade my views about Northern Ireland.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I am not accusing him of that, but he must confine himself to the subject at issue in the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: In the light of the facts, may we have an assurance that there will be a time limit relating to the extra Ministers? I do not ask for a time limit in terms of months, but rather an assurance that it will be a temporary and not a permanent expediency in this critical situation.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Harry West: I do not wish to detain the House for long at this late—or early—hour. I shall speak briefly about the position in Northern Ireland and about the two Ministers who are to be appointed to positions in Northern Ireland. I support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Capt. Orr) in inquiring of the Minister whether he can tell us what will happen at the end of the four-months' period.
Are we to have an election for the Assembly at the end of that time? I ask this now because, presumably, the House will be in recess at the end of the four-months' period. I sincerely hope that in the interests of Northern Ireland the Secretary of State or some other Government spokesman will make a statement before the House rises for the Summer Recess.
I come now to the responsibilities of the two Ministers. As a former member of two Northern Ireland Governments I have some knowledge of the problem of administering Northern Ireland generally. In my opinion there are two matters there which require the attention of Ministers. One is the security situation and the other concerns the basic industry of the country, which now finds itself in grave crisis, namely the agriculture industry. Agriculture is, of course, facing a grave crisis throughout the United Kingdom.
Turning first to the question of security, I was deeply shocked to see that this famous building had been in some way damaged by the bomb incident yesterday. I saw the extent of the damage today. It may bring home to some hon. Members how we in Northern Ireland have suffered in the past four or five years. It is good that the damage here was comparatively slight and there was no loss of life.
Contrast that with what is going on in Northern Ireland. There, people are unable to sleep in their beds at night for fear of being blown to pieces. There is a need for a Minister who will bring a political influence to bear on the security situation. I was in my constituency this morning. In one small town I witnessed the result of a 600-lb bomb. It was put in there last night, in a hi-jacked car, and exploded in the centre of the town. A constituent of mine was there this morning, gathering up the fragments of his drapery store for the fifth time since the crisis began. He told me that he will give it one more try. He has a heart like a lion. There is a great need for a Minister to devote a large part of his time to the security situation in Northern Ireland.
I have made representations to the Secretary of State. I know that he has a heavy burden on his shoulders. I asked him to receive a deputation, two and a half months ago, comprising responsible business and professional people from the five towns along the border. He was unable to find the time. In the meantime,


an attack was carried out by elements from across the border. They shot at a UDR station and killed a young woman in one of the villages that would have been represented in this deputation. This is why I say that it is absolutely essential for a Minister to have some kind of responsibility for security.
The bombs which exploded today in Northern Ireland practically wrecked six towns. These bombs weighed up to 900-lbs—practically half a ton of explosives. That gives some idea of the extent of the damage in Northern Ireland. Most of these explosives come from across the border in Eire. The border is wide open.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. I am doing my best not to interrupt the right hon. Member. I hope he will not try to widen the debate to take in the tragedy of Ulster, because there are other occasions for that.

Mr. West: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House for trespassing upon your patience. I wished to make the point that one of these two Ministers should be put in charge of security. We have suffered grievously in the past five years. The suffering is now coming to this side of the water, and it would be a tragedy if it were extended. There is a feeling, which is hardening in Northern Ireland, that the British nation is going soft on terrorists. We want to see the terrorist eliminated in the whole of the United Kingdom.
I should like to see one of these Ministers in charge of agriculture in Northern Ireland. Agriculture is our biggest and most important basic industry. It is deplorable at the moment. Beef, pigs and potatoes are our most important agricultural products. There is a serious crisis in these commodities. The latest crisis has occurred in the marketing of potatoes. The ban on the export of potatoes to the Continent has left 40,000 tons of potatoes in the hands of the Northern Ireland farmers, for which they will receive compensation in respect of 10,000 tons. That is a very serious situation. If a Minister was in charge of this industry in Northern Ireland it would help the situation.
I agree there is a crisis in the agriculture industry in the United Kingdom. A

thorough review of the whole industry is needed.
I welcome the appointment of the two Ministers to Northern Ireland for the short time they will be there.
I noted the common-sense remarks made by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Tam Dalyell). He gained the impression he spoke of after a visit to Northern Ireland. I hope that more hon. Members will visit Northern Ireland and allow us to show them what has happened there during the past four or five years. It is not a question of burning resentment towards the British people but a burning resentment of the fact that schemes have been imposed from here upon us that are not suitable for Northern Ireland as a whole.

1.37 a.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I congratulate the Government on the creation of the separate Ministry of Overseas Development. I join the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) in saying that the time has come to separate this important work from the office of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The more we concentrate upon the overseas development activities the more we put our own problems in perspective. We can direct our attention to the natural tragedies occurring abroad and see how people are suffering abroad, and realise how in Great Britain we have so much for which to be thankful. I congratulate the Government on the creation of that office.
I am not certain whether I can agree wholeheartedly with the description of the Whips by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.
I see in the Press that the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) is mentioned as a potential Minister. Perhaps he will be made a Minister as a result of this Bill. He is a Vice Chamberlain of the Household. I shall miss him coming into this Chamber dressed in a black jacket and striped trousers, carrying his wand of office. Perhaps he will find greater comfort in attending to the series of administrative tasks which he would have to take on in Northern Ireland if he became a Minister there.
The word "flummery" may be used about Lord Arran. I wish to refer briefly to him. He has castigated the Irish. He has condemned all Irish people. Lord Arran himself stands condemned.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not know how Lord Arran comes within the terms of the Bill. The hon. Member will no doubt leave the noble Lord and return to the Bill.

Mr. Kilfedder: I dragged in Lord Arran because he might be created a Minister. I should like to say—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not about the noble Lord, I hope. The hon. Member could go through the United Kingdom suggesting people who might be made Ministers. I should be grateful if he would leave the noble Lord and return to the Bill.

Mr. Kilfedder: I always follow your wishes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am happy to leave the noble Lord and his insulting remarks. The only good thing about him is that he bears an Irish title.
I regret that although the number of Ministers will be increased there is no provision to increase the number of Northern Irish Members. The Executive numbered 70 in 1957 and will now be 95. This is a dangerous trend, especially unwelcome when Northern Ireland is not propertly represented here.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) talked about the likely success of the new Ministers and about the foisting of English Ministers on Northern Ireland. We have always argued that the sooner we have fresh Assembly elections the better. We can then get down to working out some constitutional arrangement for the province without conditions imposed from Whitehall.
I do not reject the right of any fellow citizen of the United Kingdom, whether English, Scottish or Welsh, to comment on events in Northern Ireland. But Scots, and no doubt those in other parts of Great Britain, would probably agree that decisions made in Whitehall are not in their best interests. I agree that English Ministers are administering Northern Ireland affairs without being acutely aware of local conditions.
Northern Ireland is again under direct rule, and we remember what happened last time. I hope that the present Ministers will not treat Northern Ireland as the previous Ministers treated it then. I hope that orders will not be produced without proper consultation with Members or adequate explanation to the public, because such communication is essential to democracy. Nothing was worse than the way that the previous Government brought forward orders which could not be amended but which had to be accepted or rejected in their entirety—unless it was the way that they arranged for them to be debated late at night or early in the morning, as we are debating this Bill. Debating orders early in the morning does not provide the right atmosphere for a reasonable and searching discussion on a Bill which may have wide ramifications in Northern Ireland.
When I came to the House this week I felt as though I were returning to Northern Ireland, because of the dastardly destruction caused to the Palace of Westminster. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me to say that such activities, either here or in Northern Ireland, will do nothing except stiffen the resolve to beat the terrorists.
Many people long for the stirring times of old which witnessed great and dramatic events, but they forget the hardships of all those years. They remember only the glory. Having seen so much anguish, death and destruction in Northern Ireland—my right hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. West) referred to this—I would opt—if option I had—for an Ulster that was devoid of any event worthy of being reported in the history books. However, that choice is not mine, and neither I nor the people of Ulster who wish to remain part of the United Kingdom will shrink from meeting the challenges that face the Province today, and we are determined that the crucifixion of the Province will come to an end.
I hope that the new Ministers who will be responsible for Northern Ireland will make their contribution not only by being constantly in Northern Ireland looking after their administrative duties but will see to the security of the Province and to the preservation of life and property in a land which has been ravished for five long years.

1.43 a.m.

Dr. Michael Winstanley: I want to make one brief but general point about the Bill which I hope will be as much in order as those which others have managed to sneak through the net.
I understand the reasons behind the Bill, I accept the need for what is in it, and therefore I do not oppose its provisions, but I agree with the view expressed earlier that one of the effects of the Bill will be to increase still further the disparity between the financial situation of Ministers and ordinary Members. It is right that that should be a disparity, but it is also right to say that the size of the gap can be due to two things—not only the height of Ministers' salaries, but the lowness of Members' salaries.
The Bill will also increase the disparity—and there is one—between the financial situation of the Government party as a whole and the Opposition parties in general. I do not have the exact words, but the Gracious Speech said that Her Majesty's Ministers would be bringing forward proposals for giving financial assistance to Opposition parties to enable them more effectively to discharge their functions. I do not recall the Gracious Speech saying that the Government would bring forward proposals to give financial assistance to the Government party.
The Bill will, in a sense, further increase the disparity, because we shall end with a situation—we have almost arrived there now—in which almost one-third of the Government party will be Ministers of one kind or another, and one category or another.
The fact that the situation of the Government party is so very different financially from that of the different Opposition parties is a matter of which this House should take note. I mention that as a matter which is every bit as relevant as others about the comparative situations of ordinary Members and Ministers. Had we received specific assurances about when that part of the Gracious Speech was to be implemented I might have had more enthusiasm for this proposal. But, if it is to be carried through, it becomes even more urgent that the other matter should be dealt with as well, so as to narrow the gap which here we are beginning to widen.

1.50 a.m.

Mr. Michael Ancram: I intervene as an hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency. I welcome the Bill because, in Scotland, since the General Election we have been under-represented and we have felt this very severely.
In Scotland, we have faced two serious industrial crises recently, one in the petrochemical industry and the other in the cement industry, and the inactivity of Ministers at the Scottish Office can be explained only by the fact that there were not enough of them. Opposition Members should support the Bill, because, for the first time since the election, at last we may find that we have proper representation in our Ministers at the Scottish Office.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman explain precisely what he means by inactivity over the Grangemouth and BP strike?

Mr. Ancram: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has referred to that. I was present when various Opposition Members tried to raise the matter, but we got little response from the Scottish Office. I am being generous when I suggest that the inactivity which we met from the Secretary of State for Scotland on that occasion was due to the fact that there were insufficient Ministers in the Scottish Office at the time.

Mr. Dalyell: Nonsense.

1.52 a.m.

Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Ancram) in welcoming the Bill.
We agree that there should be an increase in the number of Ministers, especially as this affects Scotland, where, apart from the oil interest that we now have, and apart from possessing between half and a third of the land mass of the United Kingdom, we have very important problems.
It grieves me to see no hon. Member present to advance the views of the Scottish National Party, which pretends to be interested in the affairs of Scotland. Apparently its representatives do not consider this debate to be important. Either the hour is too late or they are too tired.


As a result, the Government and the main Opposition parties have to carry the greater part of the burden of the work of this Parliament. Even hon. Members from Northern Ireland are present. But we do not see here hon. Members who pretend that they are more interested in Scotland than others of us.
I welcome the Bill, and I support hon. Members who have spoken in favour of it.

1.53 a.m.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: With the leave of the House, perhaps I may reply briefly to some of the matters which have been referred to, especially those touched upon by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve), the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Ancram), and my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).
Under the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may have an opportunity to add to the team of Scottish Office Ministers. It is an ability which my right hon. Friend has not had because of the restrictive nature of the system as it has applied until the passage of the Bill through its various stages.
Dealing with the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), it is not for me to go in any great detail into the extent of the "flummery", as he put it, that we should enjoy, be entertained by, or put up with, in the way that he described.
My hon. Friend raised a very important matter about the gap, as he sees it, between the remuneration paid to Ministers and that which is paid to ordinary Members of Parliament. He pointed out that certain resignations might result from that.
Whether that is true or not, the fact that there is this difference is capable of resolution. We have a body—the Top Salaries Review Body, headed by Lord Boyle—which is capable of resolving and intends to deal with the matter. That body has in the past reported on both Ministerial and Members' salaries. It will in due course take note of the changing circumstances, many of which were mentioned by my hon. Friend, and produce a report covering some of them.
Most hon. Members have referred to the problems of Northern Ireland. I should like, first, to deal with the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) who referred to the increases in the number of Ministers in recent years. He is quite right. Whereas the number of Ministers was in the middle fifties in the 1920s, we have seen a growth in post-war years, and an increased growth in the last 10 or 15 years.
The reason for that growth in the number of Ministers is clear. It is due to the increased use of interventionist powers by successive Governments. Whether a Government have warmly welcomed the use of intervention or have reluctantly accepted the necessity, as the previous administration did, the result has been the same.
If the Government are to be responsible, as Governments have been in the last 10 or 15 years, for greater determination of so many issues in this country, a greater number of Ministers will be required to carry out that policy. That is the basic reason for what has happened and that is why we come to the House tonight for a further increase in the number of Ministers.
A number of hon. Members asked: how long will these extra Ministers hold office? That is a fair question. However, I am unable to give a useful answer. It is a matter for the Secretary of State to make his own requests to the Government for an increase in the number of Ministers and to specify their responsibilities. Whether they be in agriculture, as was suggested, or in any other area, it will be a matter for both the Government and the Secretary of State to determine. Naturally, I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the points that have been made tonight, but clearly it will be up to him, in assessing the needs of the situation in Northern Ireland, to make his own dispositions on these important matters.
I can state with certainty that the Secretary of State intends to make a statement to the House before the Summer Recess. Hon. Members will then have an opportunity to question him on any of the matters that have been raised tonight.
I welcome the attitude taken by the Opposition and other hon. Members to


the usefulness and value of the Bill and I look forward to it having a rapid passage through the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Golding.]

Committee this day.

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1972, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums to be so paid in pursuance of—

(a) provisions increasing or regulating (as to numbers or otherwise) the salaries payable to Ministers of the Crown, or
(b) provisions about the expenses of Ministers, including salaries or remuneration of members of their departments.—[Mr. Robert Sheldon.]

PETITION

Breast Cancer

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I beg to ask leave to present a Petition drawn up by the National Association of Ladies Circles of Great Britain and Ireland, which calls for more thorough investigation into the detection of breast cancer and for facilities to be made more easily available in order to ensure the early diagnosis of this disease. This Petition contains in excess of 12,500 signatures, collected by the association's branches throughout the whole country.
The Petition concludes by asking that this House should promote further research into the early diagnosis of breast cancer and urges the need for a screening programme to be more readily available.

The Petition concludes:
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray".

To lie upon the Table.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Golding.]

HEARING AIDS

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Ronald Bray: I acknowledge the tolerance of the House in permitting me to raise at this late hour the question of the provision of a better service for the deaf. This debate originates from the statement made on 9th July 1973 by the then Secretary of State for Social Services, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), in which he stated that a behind-the-ear type of hearing aid would become available under the National Health Service. Up to then, the only issue of hearing aid was the body-worn aid, or what was irrevertenly called the "bosom-basher" hearing aid, which had its origin in about 1948. It would be for the benefit of the House if I gave briefly the background to events in the interim period.
From 1948 until 1973—over 25 years—the only National Health Service hearing aid was of that type. The hearing aid industry which developed over the intervening 25 years and which currently has 170 dispensers and 1,500 people engaged in the production of hearing aids in this country, developed and produced several varieties of hearing aids, behind-the-ear and of similar pattern, of much more sophisticated design. The people in the industry endeavoured to make good the deficiency in the style of aid offered by the National Health Service, both in its sartorial effect and its overall efficiency. This they did with a certain degree of satisfaction. It can be seen from the figures for sales or prescriptions provided by these people that they produced something that people wanted which was much more attractive than the aid offered under the National Health Service.
The industry, however, had its disadvantages. It had what we might term its "cowboys"—those who sold where they could and how they could, and who abused this section of the industry. To offset this, the dispensers and consultants set up their own trade association, which endeavoured to discipline or to police the industry. The association has done that with a reasonably high degree of satisfaction both to the industry and to its customers. There is also a manufacturers' association which until recent months was independent of the dispensing side or the


consultancy side of the business. I emphasise that from the increased sales of their products—"sales" is the operative word in this case—it must appear that those who suffer from being hard of hearing were fairly satisfied.
As a result of the Minister's statement in July 1973 there were two meetings with the trade associations. The first was in August and the second in November, with the then Under-Secretary. At the first meeting the trade was asked what services it could offer, what sort of distributive system it had, and so on. The second meeting was wholly unsatisfactory. It amounted to more or less saying, "Thank you for coming last time, nice to have met you, goodbye." In other words, the associations were not consulted on what virtually amounted to notice to quit.
It was at this juncture that I was involved, as a direct result of an approach by a constituent of mine, Mr. E. Slater of Rawtenstall, who is a consultant in hearing aids and a hard-working and honest man if ever I met one. I wrote then to the then Secretary of State about the matter, saying:
The difficulty is that the private sector of the hearing aid industry in so far as audiologists are concerned will be put out of business since all hearing aids will ultimately be supplied through the hospital service. Whether the consultants give good or bad service, whether they like it or not, their livelihood has been taken from them. I would respectfully suggest that this is one step towards a national health service which will in due course eliminate freedom of choice and the private sector—it is logically very unlikely that these consultants will be able to find sufficient private practice to exist, much less remain in business! Obviously the majority of the consultants have great experience, are well qualified and have served the community beneficially over a number of years. If this is to be the policy of HMG for hearing aids, then surely it is not unlikely that it will be extended to other beneficial services and equipment supplied exclusively through the NHS.
I shall be pleased to hear what action the Department propose to take to safeguard the consultants, that the fears of the Hearing Aid Industry Association are unfounded, and that there will be no further inroads by the Department into the private sector. A number of hon. Members from both sides have received what can only be described as a brushoff reply. As a result of that I tabled a Parliamentary Question asking for a complete list of hearing aid designs

approved by the Department for the National Health Service. The reply was more than slightly offputting. I was told by the then Under-Secretary that
My Department has so far approved two behind-the-ear hearing aids for general issue through the National Health Service. One, model OL67 manufactured by Oticon Ltd., in Denmark, is currently supplied to school children. The other, which will be the first of this type to be issued to adults, will be available next year and will also be manufactured by Oticon Ltd., but in a development area in Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December 1973; Vol. 866, c. 140.]
I was also advised that the Department would not be offering existing or other private qualified consultants contractual employment but that these people would be given the chance of employment in the health service as dispensers provided they met the requirements of the Whitley Council. I suggest that that is not in the least a satisfactory answer, bearing in mind that some of those consultants have been in the industry and the profession for 25 years.
I followed with a further series of Questions, and on 20th December I received a reply to a Parliamentary Question in which I asked for a register of qualified consultants or qualified audiologists and I was advised that the Department did not maintain such a register. Perhaps I am very thin-skinned, but I took a dim view of that reply because what it did not tell me in answer to my Question was that the then Department of Trade and Industry maintained such a register. The Department of Health and Social Security were not being, to say the least, helpful.
On the same day I asked another Question of the Secretary of State for Social Services—whether he would
provide facilities for British manufacturers to tender for the supply of all types and models of behind-the-ear hearing aids approved by his Department".
The reply read:
British manufacturers were able to tender and a number did for the behind-the-ear hearing aids to be supplied through the National Health Service. Some tenders are still under consideration and an opportunity remains for these manufacturers to submit models for approval and supply."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December 1973, Vol. 866, c. 377.]
There is, however, another issue arising, namely, that a contract had already been placed with Oticon, in Denmark, on 28th


November, for these identical hearing aids. In other words, somebody, somewhere, was misleading. Three weeks or so had gone by and this information was not available.
There is another factor still—that the British manufacturers can offer at least the same manufacturing facilities as those of the Danish company. They can go further. They do not require Government finance for a factory in a development area in Scotland for these bits and pieces to be made.
Such was the picture. I suggest that the Department was less than frank right through the issue. I have already detailed the information as to the numbers ordered. It was 150,000–60,000 in the first year and 90,000 in the second. I am given to understand that there are no further contractual arrangements with Oticon but I do not feel that it was in any way fair that the Department should overlook British manufacturers in this matter.
Now we come to the main issue—is the Department of Health and Social Security fully equipped and able to meet the needs of the service? What we all want—I am sure that the Minister will confirm this—is to give first-class service to the public as a whole.
One point must be put on the question of the register: I should like confirmation of the fact that the Oticon units offered are suitable only for the medium-deaf and not for those seriously affected. As a layman, I am given to understand that those who are medium-deaf or less can have surgical or other remedial treatment, which would perhaps dispense with those types of equipment.
In a letter which I received in February from the then Under-Secretary I was told that the whole of the distribution would be effected by the National Health Service, which, on its own admission, was short of staff qualified for the purpose. I do not see why it is necessary to give those who work in the Department a slap in the face, which is what the methods adopted amount to.
On 25th March this year, a departmental circular, reference H/D11/01, was sent to area health authorities. Completely contrary to the information which has been given, it suggests that the autho

rities should make a deal with the private sector and ask it to assist in the provision of hearing aids. It says:
If the necessary fitting skills are not available within the National Health Service, the dispensing of these aids should be carried out by dispensers registered under the Hearing Aid Council Act 1968. Local arrangements for this purpose should be made by Supplies Officers, subject to the approval of the Otologist.
That is a complete reversal of procedure. The circular, which came into my hands by accident also says:
Some children will be suited only by other types of special hearing aids and it will be necessary for these to be purchased from and fitted by private dispensers. Local arrangements for this should be made by Area Supplies Officers on the recommendation of an Otologist.
We have a reversal of policy there.
Everybody wants to give the best possible service to the deaf—to those who are not so well placed in life. What I do not understand and do not like is the attitude that this will be a 100 per cent. National Health Service matter. There may be a political slant; I do not know. The National Health Service admits that it does not have all the dispensers. It may not have all the ear, nose and throat specialists available to recommend. Therefore, it goes back on what it said previously, and says very quietly to the area health authorities, "Make a quiet deal with private practice. Use it while you can, and when you are equipped to do the job yourselves throw it overboard." That is the impression created by this correspondence. I hope that I am wrong in my assumption.
I should like to see arrangements similar to those in certain European countries, whereby the otologists continue to operate in private practice, but the recommendations are made to them by the ear, nose and throat specialists. They are told, for example, "Mr. Smith requires this type of equipment, and you are authorised to supply it".
There is also the question of servicing, of replacing batteries, and so on. I understand that the National Health Service would not object to the private sector's supplying replacement parts. I advocate a partnership between those who have given good service over the years—many of them are small independent practitioners—and the National


Health Service. By team work we can achieve the results to which we all look forward. I hope that the Minister will support my plea.

2.20 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I must compliment the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Bray) on his choice of subject tonight, for it is of great interest to many right hon. and hon. Members. I am glad of the opportunity of the debate because—let us face it—in the past, the services for the deaf, not being one of the glamorous areas of health care, have been somewhat neglected in the National Health Service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who is tragically, completely but triumphally deaf, had hoped to be here for the debate, but this has proved impossible because of a commitment tomorrow morning to which he was firmly pledged before the date of the debate was announced. I know that the hon. Member for Rossendale and the whole House will agree with me that my honoured and hon. Friend notably personifies not only the courage and fortitude but the determination of the deaf to overcome a grievous disability.
I take personal pleasure—indeed, I rejoice—in my hon. Friend's close association with my Department as Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend herself is, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, deeply and most genuinely concerned with the problems with which deaf people have to contend. My colleague—my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt)—is here for the debate. He, too, is much respected for his triumph over severe disability and his abiding concern for the welfare of the deaf and all who are afflicted by hearing difficulties.
The hon. Member has spoken about the new National Health Service behind-the-ear hearing aid for adults which, to their credit, the last Government decided to introduce. I shall speak of this in a moment, but first I must say that we are not concerned simply to issue a new kind of aid it is our aim to improve the whole standard of service provided for those with hearing impairment. This

means better ways of identifying them, of treating conditions which may respond, and of assessing each patient's hearing impairment and its implications for his social and economic functioning.
Audiology departments need improvements in the design of buildings, in standards of accommodation and equipment and, not least, in the kind and quality of after-care and rehabilitation that they provide. Of course, we all know that it is not enough just to hand out a hearing aid. The user needs help—in some cases, over a considerable period—so that he can learn not only how to operate his aid, but how to exploit its full potential and make the best use of his residual hearing. He may also need training in lip-reading and, perhaps, speech therapy.
The quality, effectiveness and availability of these follow-up and educational services will make all the difference for hearing aid users in helping them to get continued good service from their aid and adapt successfully to their hearing loss in their daily lives. All this serves only to show what a major programme we are embarking on—and hon. Members will not need me to stress that, with present resource limitations, it will take some years before we can hope to achieve the comprehensive, district based service which is our ultimate objective.
We are anxious that, in spite of their current financial problems, National Health Service authorities should develop these services as a matter of urgency. We have, therefore, just decided that, although it must remain a local decision what priority can be given to them in the light of competing demands on resources, we will exceptionally make available a small amount of finance above the ordinary allocations to health service authorities to supplement the financing of some essential projects which could otherwise not be undertaken.
The Medresco range of hearing aids has served the deaf well, and will continue to do so, but it was only a matter of time before behind-the-ear hearing aids which could be worn unobtrusively were available without charge. It was, therefore, with considerable pleasure that the House heard the announcement in July last year by the previous Secretary of State for Social Services—the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph).


In order to get the new programme off the ground in the shortest possible time, it was decided to utilise tried and tested aids of commercial design provided that they conformed with an up-to-date technical specification prepared by my Department and its expert advisers. It was envisaged that more than one supplier would be needed for the quantities involved. Invitations to tender were sent to all manufacturers in the United Kingdom, EEC countries and elsewhere who had expressed an interest and who were thought to be in a position to offer suitable aids.
As a result of this competition, one contract has so far been placed with the Danish company—Oticon Limited—which has a world-wide reputation as a designer and manufacturer of hearing aids. Although the company's aid is of Danish design, it is being manufactured at a new factory opened specially for this purpose in the Scottish Development Area. When in full production, 60 new jobs for British work people will have been created. The award of further contracts within the next few weeks is planned, and revised quotations from other tenderers, which include British firms, are in the final stages of examination.
The addition of this new aid will attract many more people to health services, and it is estimated that about a million people in the whole country could benefit. This represents a considerable extra commitment to the National Health Service, not only in terms of money for the aids themselves but in highly-trained staff, accommodation and equipment. To allow time for the services to develop to meet the additional burden it was necessary to adopt a system of priority, and in the first year, starting in November, priority is being given to war pensioners who require aids for their accepted disabilities, mothers with children below 5 years of age, children and young people receiving full-time education or whose aid was replaced by a body worn model on leaving school, and people with exceptional medical need or with an additional severe handicap such as blindness. The priority groups for the second and subsequent years are being considered.
The hon. Gentleman has spoken about the possibility of using the expertise of the private dispensers of hearing aids.

Many private dispensers have written to us, and members of the Hearing Aid Council have discussed with the Department the possible effects of a decline in the private sector. The previous Government considered this, and so have we. We are convinced that what hard of hearing people need is not merely a service which dispenses hearing aids but a comprehensive service concerned with medical diagnosis follow-up and rehabilitation as well as fitting the aid, with all of these aspects under consultant surveillance. In the circumstances the decision taken by the previous Government to go for a hospital based service was inescapable and I agree absolutely with their conclusion.
Private dispensers have asked why the provision of hearing aids could not be treated in the same way as spectacles, and at first glance this is not an unreasonable request, but it does not hold up to closer examination. The fitting of a hearing aid is not the same as fitting a pair of spectacles, because hard-of-hearing people need to be educated over sometimes quite considerable periods in the use of their aids. We regard the actual fitting as part of a continuous process and not capable of being divorced from the other parts of the service. There would have to be a separation of diagnosis, prescription and follow-up from dispensing with the result that the hospital dispensing service would not develop and the goal of a comprehensive service would be lost.
There are other important factors—namely, cost and the distribution of services, and I can hold out no hope that the private dispensers will be brought in to the new arrangements. In saying this, I am not casting any doubt on the standards of practice of the private dispensers registered with the Hearing Aid Council. Together they constitute a body of great skill who have provided and, I am sure, will continue to provide a service of value to the deaf population. There will be a place for them, partly because many deaf people will not for the time being be suited by National Health Service aids even when the new headworn aid is introduced—as I have said, it will take a long time to make the National Health Service fully comprehensive—partly because no doubt private industry will pioneer new devices, and partly because many deaf people will in any case prefer to use the private sector.

Mr. Bray: Mr. Bray
rose—

Mr. Morris: If I am to reply to the debate we shall have to be quick, as I understand we are now pressed very hard indeed for time.

Mr. Bray: Will the Minister state the time span between the time that the National Health Service behind-the-ear hearing aid is introduced until it is fully available?

Mr. Morris: That anticipates a point that I was hoping to make.
The development of a comprehensive service is our objective, but obviously improvements are going to take some considerable time, particularly in view of the strains on existing National Health Service resources. Though the number of technical staff is growing year by year, it is not evenly spread and there are local difficulties of recruitment. There was in Great Britain, prior to the recent reorganisation of the National Health Ser

vice, the whole equivalent of about 390 physiological measurement technicians—that is audiology—including students, working in hospitals. My Department has advised authorities that over the country the aim should be to secure a net increase of 20 per cent. this year in staffing levels and a doubling thereafter. There are areas which are poorly provided for and the increase would need to be higher in these places. The Department has been examining the need for additional training arrangements to meet increased recruitment and the introduction of new types of hearing aid—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having been continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Two o'clock a.m.